motion for recosideration brief.pdf

Vincent Nystrom Petitioner V City Of Marquette Respondent · 26-002475-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

VINCENT NYSTROM, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-002475 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Williams Williams Rattner 

& Plunkett, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

I. Introduction 

 

The Tribunal dismissed this appeal because Petitioner did not protest the 

subject property’s assessment to Respondent’s 2026 March Board of Review. 

Petitioner explained this fact when he filed his Petition. Materials submitted with 

the Petition also explained the reason that no protest occurred: Respondent’s notice 

of assessment identifying not only the amount of the assessment, but also the meeting 

dates for the March Board of Review, did not arrive until after the March Board of 

Review had closed. Two affidavits from owners of properties within the condominium 

complex where the subject property is located substantiated that notices for 

properties within that complex did not arrive in time to allow owners to protest. The 

Tribunal nevertheless entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing the petition, such 

that the appeal was over before it even started. 

To support the decision to dismiss, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, ___ Mich ___ (2025), attached as Exhibit A. 

Sixarp held that the board of review protest requirement is jurisdictional and that 

the Tribunal has no generalized equitable power to disregard it. But Sixarp also 

holds that the requirement may be waived when necessary to remedy a problem that 

deprived the taxpayer of the ability to protest in the first place. Id., slip op at 15. In 

reaching that holding, the Supreme Court preserved the central principle from 

Parkview Memorial Assoc’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990). By 

preserving that aspect of Parkview, the Supreme Court treated the timely notice

received by the taxpayer in Sixarp as materially different from an absence of notice 

received in advance of the board of review meeting. 

With due respect, the Order of Dismissal applies Sixarp too broadly. The 

Order’s application of Sixarp does not account for the second part of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. Likewise, the Order does not address the unrebutted affidavits 

establishing that Petitioner had no notice of either the assessments or the Board’s 

meeting dates until it was already too late for Petitioner to protest. That omission is 

a palpable error that misled the Tribunal to an incorrect decision. Petitioner 

respectfully requests that the Tribunal reconsider the Order and reinstate the appeal. 

II. Statement of Facts 

 

Petitioner owns a condominium unit that is part of a 27-unit condo complex 

located in the City of Marquette. The subject property is classified as residential real 

property. For 2026, Respondent assessed the subject property as if its true cash value 

equaled $807,000. See Notice of Assessment, Exhibit B. That was significantly more 

than the price that Petitioner paid to purchase the subject property during December 

2025; the purchase price equaled $697,900. See Affidavit of Vincent Nystrom, 

Exhibit C ¶3. In addition to the amount of the subject property’s assessment, the 

notice also listed the meeting dates for the City of Marquette 2026 March Board of 

Review. Those dates were March 9 and 10, 2026. See Exhibit B. 

Petitioner did not learn of the assessment or the dates, however, until after the 

2026 March Board of Review had already closed. Petitioner attested that he did not 

receive the Notice of Assessment until late March 2026. It arrived at the subject

property, which is Petitioner’s principal residence, and is the address where 

Respondent directed the Notice of Assessment. Petitioner attested that he regularly 

checks his mail, but he did not receive the notice before March 10, 2026. Exhibit C, 

¶¶6-8. He promptly submitted an appeal after receiving the notice, but Respondent 

told him that he would have to wait until next year. Exhibit C, ¶9; see also Protest 

letter, Exhibit D. 

The same thing happened to Chip Properties, LLC (“Chip Properties”), which 

developed the condo complex. John Foster, a member and the registered agent for 

Chip Properties first received the 2026 notices of assessment for Chip Properties’ 22 

condo unit parcels after the March Board of Review closed. See Affidavit of John 

Foster, Exhibit E, ¶12. Mr. Foster attested that he works at Chip Properties’ 

registered office on most business days, regularly receives Chip Properties’ mail at 

that office, and is the only person who receives or gathers Chip Properties’ mail. See 

Exhibit E, ¶¶4-9. He further attested that none of the notices arrived before March 

10, that no notice arrived by any other means, and that the mailed notices arrived 

only after March 10. See Exhibit E, ¶10-12. 

Petitioner submitted his Petition with attached Affidavits from both himself 

and Mr. Foster explaining these facts. On September 17, however, the Tribunal 

entered the Order of Dismissal. Respondent had not asked for the dismissal. In fact, 

it does not appear that Respondent was even provided a copy of the Petition before 

the Tribunal entered the Order of Dismissal. The Order of Dismissal arrived to 

Petitioner’s counsel only minutes after the Notice of Docket Number was issued. See

Notice of Docket Number, Exhibit F, and Order of Dismissal, Exhibit G. Petitioner 

now respectfully requests that the Tribunal grant reconsideration of the Order of 

Dismissal and reinstate Petitioner’s appeal. 

III. Legal Analysis 

 

The Tax Tribunal Rules, see TTR 226, and Chapter 4 of the Administrative 

Procedures Act, MCL 24.271 et seq., both provide for reconsideration but do not 

directly establish a legal standard for reconsideration. Accordingly, under TTR 201, 

the Michigan Court Rules apply. Under the Michigan Court Rules, a motion for 

reconsideration must demonstrate a palpable error that misled the Tribunal and the 

parties and that correcting the error will result in a different disposition. See MCR 

2.119(F)(3). Reconsideration is warranted here because the Order cites Sixarp for the 

Tribunal’s lack of general equitable authority but omits the express exception for lack 

of adequate notice discussed in Sixarp. 

A. 

The General Property Tax Act Requires Taxing Jurisdictions to 

 

Provide Notice to Taxpayers in Advance of the March Board of Review 

 

Under the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), taxing 

jurisdictions must provide notice of a property’s assessment and the opportunity to 

protest that assessment to the March Board of Review. The GPTA requires “notice 

by first-class mail of an increase in the tentative state equalized valuation or the 

tentative taxable value for the year.” It must be mailed “not less than 14 days before 

the meeting of the board of review.” And it “shall also specify the time and place of 

the meeting of the board of review.” MCL 211.24c(1), (4).

B. 

Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp Does Not Render the March Board of Review 

 

 

Protest Requirement Absolute When the Taxpayer was Deprived of an 

 

 

Opportunity to Protest 

 

In general, the GPTA requires a taxpayer who wishes to challenge the 

valuation of real property classified residential to protest the assessment to the 

March Board of Review before the taxpayer can file an appeal in the Tribunal. See 

MCL 205.735a. Though the Supreme Court in Sixarp described this as jurisdictional, 

in the next breath the Court explained that the requirement may be waived when 

there is a violation that deprived the taxpayer of the ability to protest: 

Instead, the protest requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be 

waived by the court if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process 

violation that deprived the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right 

to protest. 

 

Sixarp, Exhibit A at 15, citing Highland-Howell Dev Co, LLC v Marion Twp, 478 Mich 

932, 933 (2007), and Wikman v City of Novi, 413 Mich 617, 648 (1982). A taxpayer 

who did not protest therefore should have an opportunity to demonstrate that the 

taxing jurisdiction deprived it of due process and of the ability to invoke the protest 

procedure. See Sixarp, Exhibit A at 15-16. This aspect of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sixarp is not taken into account in the Order of Dismissal. 

The Order of Dismissal overlooking this aspect of Sixarp is important because 

Petitioner’s posture is different than the posture of the taxpayer who had its appeal 

dismissed in Sixarp. There, the taxpayer received an assessment notice more than 

14 days before the Board of Review began to meet. The notice identified the Board’s 

meeting dates and times, the deadlines for a written protest or appearance, and the 

need to protest to preserve further review. See id., Exhibit A at 23-24. Although a

separate exemption-denial notice was imperfect, the taxpayer had timely actual 

notice of the assessment and the appeal procedure. See id., Exhibit A at 27-28. The 

Supreme Court relied on that timely notice to conclude that the taxpayer was not 

denied its ability to invoke its right to protest. 

Here, the only evidence that was before the Tribunal establishes the opposite. 

Petitioner received no notice of the assessments, the Board’s dates, or the protest 

procedure before the Board closed. Exhibit C, ¶¶5-12. The same thing happened to 

another owner in the same condominium complex at a different mailing address. 

Exhibit E, ¶¶10-15. And Petitioner did try to protest as soon as he received the notice. 

See Exhibit D. The reason that the Court cited in Sixarp for rejecting waiver and 

enforcing the protest requirement is therefore missing from this case. 

 

C. 

Sixarp Preserved the Authority to Grant Relief when 

 

 

Assessment Notices Arrived Too Late to Allow a Taxpayer 

 

 

to Protest at a Board of Review 

 

The prospect that a taxpayer could be in a posture where it was denied the 

ability to protest because of lack of notice led the Court in Sixarp to preserve the 

authorities that allow relief for such a taxpayer. One such authority is the Court of 

Appeals decision in Parkview Memorial Assoc’n v City of Livonia. There, the City of 

Livonia mailed assessment notices two days after the board of review convened for 

its final day. See id., 183 Mich App at 117-18 . The taxpayers did not protest because 

they had no timely notice. The Court of Appeals held that the late notices were not 

reasonably calculated to afford notice and an opportunity to be heard and remanded 

the taxpayers’ claims to the Tribunal. See id. at 118-21.

Sixarp overruled Parkview only to the extent Parkview described the protest 

requirement as procedural rather than jurisdictional. See Sixarp, Exhibit A at 14-15. 

It did not overrule the conclusion in Parkview that notice arriving too late to permit 

a board protest violates the taxpayer’s rights. To the contrary, Sixarp distinguished 

Parkview because the Parkview taxpayers received no notice until after the 

opportunity to protest had passed. See Sixarp, Exhibit A at 12-15. 

Similarly, Sixarp cited W&E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp, 402 Mich 950l 

(1978), as an example of facts where relief was appropriate. There, the taxpayers did 

not learn of increases in their properties’ assessment until after the board meetings 

had closed. See id., 77 Mich App 618, 619-21 (1977), rev’d and remanded 402 Mich 

950l (1978). The Supreme Court therefore directed the Tribunal to consider the 

merits of the taxpayers’ appeals notwithstanding the lack of a board protest. In 

Sixarp, the Supreme Court described W&E Burnside as a case in which the absence 

of notice before the board began to meet “effectively depriv[ed]” the taxpayers of the 

right to be heard. Sixarp, Exhibit A at 13-14. 

The Supreme Court in Sixarp also cited Highland-Howell Dev Co, LLC v 

Marion Twp, for the proposition that the governing statutes cannot be construed to 

deny a taxpayer due process. See Sixarp, Exhibit A at 15, citing Highland-Howell, 

478 Mich at 933. Collectively, these authorities establish that jurisdictional 

terminology does not permit the government to require a board protest while failing 

to provide notice necessary to make that protest possible.

Petitioner’s evidence presents the circumstance that Sixarp distinguished, and 

that the Court in Sixarp identified as warranting relief as provided in W&E Burnside. 

In the instant appeal, Petitioner did not overlook a known deadline, misunderstand 

a notice, or choose an incorrect procedure. He received no notice at all until the 

prescribed procedure was no longer available. But even then, he tried. 

 

D. 

Petitioner’s Unrebutted Affidavits Precluded Dismissal 

 

 

Without the Tribunal Addressing the Notice Issue 

 

As a minimum, Petitioner should have an opportunity to demonstrate that the 

City’s notice deprived him of any opportunity to protest the assessment on his 

property to preserve the right to appeal. Due process requires notice and an 

opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. See 

Sixarp, Exhibit A at 18. The question is whether the notice method was reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances, to inform the taxpayer and afford an 

opportunity to object. See id. at 19-20. Notice that first arrives after the only 

available hearing has ended affords no meaningful opportunity to be heard. 

In prior appeals, the Tribunal has treated whether notice was appropriately 

provided to a taxpayer as an issue for the parties to address. Examples include Taeih 

v City of Dearborn, Docket No. 17-003334 (Mich. Tax Trib. Mar. 26, 2018), where the 

Tribunal considered evidence whether the taxpayers were deprived of any 

opportunity to protest at the March board of review before concluding that it must 

dismiss the appeal. To similar effect is Paisley v Mullett Twp, Docket No. 100389 

(Mich. Tax Trib. Sept. 23, 1986), where the Tribunal analyzed whether the notice was 

proper before reaching a conclusion about whether the appeal could proceed.

Here, however, the Tribunal disposed of Petitioner’s appeal in spite of the only 

evidence before the Tribunal. The present record permits no conclusion that 

Respondent provided constitutionally adequate notice. Respondent supplied no 

evidence of the date of mailing, the method of mailing, the date the notices were 

generated or delivered for mailing, or any other effort to provide notice. The notices 

themselves contain no visible mailing date. Against that absence, two affiants at 

different addresses in the same condominium complex attested that every notice they 

were due to receive arrived after the March Board of Review had closed. Petitioner’s 

affidavit confirms that he regularly checked the mail at his principal residence and 

recalled receiving the notice in late March 2026, after the Board of Review closed. 

Exhibit C, ¶¶6-10. His action in submitting an attempt to appeal is consistent with 

that. See Exhibit D. Moreover, Mr. Foster’s affidavit accounts for all mail that Chip 

Properties received and excludes notice by another means, confirming a materially 

identical delay involving 22 other units in the same complex. See Exhibit E, ¶¶11-15. 

The Order neither accepts nor rejects this evidence. It does not determine 

whether Respondent timely mailed the notices, whether its notice procedure was 

reasonably calculated to provide notice before the Board met, or whether Petitioner 

had notice from another source. Instead, it proceeds directly from the absence of a 

protest to dismissal. Sixarp requires an inquiry into those facts to determine whether 

an exception to the protest requirement applies. That is the same inquiry that the 

Tribunal conducted in Taeih v City of Dearborn, for example.

The Tribunal should not finally resolve that issue against Petitioner without 

allowing development of facts held principally by Respondent. Records identifying 

when Respondent generated the notices, delivered them for mailing, paid postage, or 

transmitted them to a mailing contractor will bear directly on whether its notice 

procedure was reasonably calculated to afford a timely opportunity to protest. 

Reconsideration would permit that narrow factual inquiry and ensure that the 

Tribunal does not apply Sixarp in a manner that acknowledges only the first part, 

and not the second part, of that decision. 

IV. Conclusion and Request for Relief 

The Order applies the jurisdictional principle from Sixarp without addressing 

the exception set forth in that decision, or Petitioner’s unrebutted evidence that no 

notice arrived until the March Board of Review had closed. Petitioner respectfully 

requests that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal and reinstate his 

appeal. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Long 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 William E. Hosler (P41257) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jason C. Long (P59244) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Dated: September 23, 2026

Exhibit A

FILED March 26, 2025 

 

 

 

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N 

 

SUPREME COURT 

 

 

SIXARP, LLC, doing business as PRAXIS 

PACKAGING SOLUTIONS, 

 

 

Petitioner-Appellee, 

 

 

v 

No. 166190 

 

TOWNSHIP OF BYRON, 

 

 

 

Respondent-Appellant. 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH (except THOMAS, J.) 

 

CAVANAGH, J. 

In this case, we consider whether the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) can exercise 

jurisdiction over a taxpayer’s challenge to tax-exemption denials when the taxpayer did 

not initially protest those denials before the March Board of Review (the Board) as required 

by MCL 205.735a(3). Taxpayer, Sixarp, LLC, doing business as Praxis Packaging 

Solutions (Praxis), contends that its failure to protest before the Board may be excused or 

waived because respondent, the Township of Byron (the Township), failed to provide 

 

Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

OPINION 

 

Chief Justice: 

Elizabeth T. Clement 

 

 

Justices: 

Brian K. Zahra 

Richard H. Bernstein 

Megan K. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth M. Welch 

Kyra H. Bolden 

Kimberly A. Thomas

2 

 

Praxis with constitutionally sufficient notice. We hold that the Township’s notice to Praxis 

did not violate Praxis’s due-process rights and that the Township’s actions did not deprive 

Praxis of its ability to invoke the right to protest. Because Praxis failed to file a timely 

protest before the Board as required by MCL 205.735a(3), the MTT did not have 

jurisdiction to hear Praxis’s claims. Therefore, we reverse the Court of Appeals judgment 

and reinstate the MTT’s dismissal of the petition. 

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Praxis is a packaging company that operates a manufacturing facility in Byron 

Township. In February 2021, Praxis applied to respondent Township for the eligible 

manufacturing personal property (EMPP) exemption under MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n 

for the 2021 tax year related to some of its manufacturing equipment. On February 9, 2021, 

the Township’s assessor, Timothy Baker, denied Praxis’s request for the EMPP tax 

exemption and mailed the denial notice to Praxis. He provided the following reason for 

the denial: 

I certify that based on my review, the qualified new personal property 

and/or qualified existing personal property claimed on Form 5278 does not 

meet the definition of Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property as defined 

by MCL 211.9m and/or MCL 211.9n, therefore the Eligible Manufacturing 

Personal Property exemption is denied. [Emphasis omitted.] 

The denial notice also contained a section at the bottom labeled “Notification of Taxpayers 

[sic] Right of Appeal” in bold font, which stated, in part, that a taxpayer may appeal an 

assessor’s denial of the EMPP exemption to the March Board of Review under MCL

3 

 

211.301 and that “[f]iling a protest with the Board of Review is necessary to protect your 

right to further appeal an EMPP exemption dispute to the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.” 

On February 17, 2021, the Township mailed a separate notice of assessment to 

Praxis that included the increased tentative state-equalized taxable value for the current 

year and taxable value from the previous year for the property. See MCL 211.24c and 

MCL 211.34c. The notice provided detailed information about appealing the assessed 

values to the Board under the heading “March Board of Appeal Review Information” with 

specific meeting times and instructions: 

Your assessment changed for the following reason(s): 

Personal property was updated on 2/17/2021, any new updates will be 

posted on the website. 

If you believe these values are incorrect you may appeal to the board 

of review which will meet March 8 from 9:00 a.m.to noon, and from 1 p.m. 

to 5 p.m. [and] March 9 from 1:00 p.m.to 5:00 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. 

To appeal these values, call 616-878-6033 before March 5 for an 

appointment with the board of review. Meetings can be attended either in 

person, virtual, or by letter appeal. Petition forms must be completed and are 

available as in the paragraph above. Letter appeals must be received by 

March 5, 2021. The board of review meets in the township hall.[2] 

 

1 The Board of Review is generally required to meet on the second Monday in March, 

although the governing body of the city or township may authorize by ordinance or 

resolution alternative starting dates on either the Tuesday or Wednesday following the 

second Monday in March. MCL 211.30. The Board’s review of assessments must be 

completed on or before the first Monday in April. MCL 211.30a. The Board also meets 

in July and December for the purpose of reviewing qualified errors, but that error type is 

not implicated here. See MCL 211.53b. 

2 Quotations from the notice of assessment have been changed from upper case for 

improved readability.

4 

 

The notice also stated that “[f]iling a protest with the Board of Review is necessary to 

protect your right to further appeal valuation and exemption disputes to the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal and classification appeals to the State Tax Commission.” The Board’s meeting 

schedule was posted publicly on respondent’s website, as well as at the Byron Township 

offices from February 1, 2021 to March 9, 2021.3 

Praxis’s finance controller, Timothy Karsten, received the notice of the EMPP 

exemption denial no later than February 23, 2021. On February 26, 2021, Karsten 

contacted Baker to provide a verbal notice of Praxis’s intent to appeal, request a hearing 

date, and learn the requirements for an appeal. Karsten averred that Baker told him to 

email a letter appeal. Karsten then advised Lisa Pohl, who was retained by Praxis to appeal 

the EMPP exemption denial, of his communications with Baker, including Baker’s 

suggestion to email a letter appeal. In early March 2021, Pohl left Baker a voicemail 

inquiring about the appeal procedure and deadlines and requesting an in-person hearing 

with the Board. Baker returned her call on March 2, 2021, and left a voicemail. According 

to Pohl’s uncertified transcription of the voicemail, Baker told Pohl that she should email 

him the letter appeal so that he could then send her the petition to sign and return. In his 

communications with Karsten and Pohl, Baker did not provide any deadlines, give a 

 

3 Notice was also posted in the Grand Rapids Press on February 21, 23, and 25. The Grand 

Rapids Press posting explained that the Board “shall convene on the 8th day of March, 

2021 and shall sit not less than three calendar days . . . .” It specified meeting times on 

March 8 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and March 9 from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. However, 

the posting erroneously indicated in its last sentence that “Board of Review appointments 

may be made by contacting the Assessor’s Office from March 1th [sic] through March 

10th,” despite the fact that the Board would adjourn on March 9. There is no evidence 

that Praxis acted in reliance on the Grand Rapids Press posting, nor has Praxis argued 

that it did so.

5 

 

hearing date, or advise them that the combined document had to be refiled to perfect the 

appeal. 

The Board met on March 8, 2021, and March 9, 2021, to hear taxpayer petitions, 

valuation disputes, and exemption appeals, and adjourned on the evening of the 9th. Pohl 

sent a letter appeal to Baker by email on March 10, 2021, at 6:39 p.m., but it was too late 

because, as Baker explained via email to Pohl the following day, the Board had already 

adjourned at 9:00 p.m. on March 9. Pohl responded and demanded recourse, claiming that 

the assessor was on notice that Praxis intended to appeal. The assessor did not respond. 

Ultimately, Praxis did not appear before the March 2021 Board, and the Board did not 

consider Praxis’s appeal. 

On April 12, 2021, Praxis filed a five-count petition with the MTT. Praxis alleged 

that Baker’s alleged failure to notify Praxis about its appeal rights, as well as his failure to 

provide an adequate explanation as to why Praxis’s EMPP application was denied, violated 

Praxis’s right to due process of law under the United States Constitution, US Const Am 

XIV, and the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 17.4 Additionally, Praxis asserted 

that it qualified for the EMPP exemption. The Township moved for summary disposition 

under MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and (C)(10) (no questions of 

material fact and judgment required as a matter of law). The Township argued that it had 

provided sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard after denying the exemption as 

required by MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n, but Praxis had failed to appeal to the Board 

 

4 Praxis’s petition did not specifically cite these constitutional provisions but rather cited 

caselaw that relies upon them. See, e.g., Spranger v City of Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 

482-484; 865 NW2d 52 (2014).

6 

 

first, therefore depriving the MTT of jurisdiction. In response, Praxis moved for partial 

summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that it was entitled to the 

exemption, that the notice was inadequate as to the reason for the denial and available 

appellate rights, and that the assessor failed to comply with MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 

211.9n(3) when he failed to inform Praxis that it had to refile its combined document to 

perfect its appeal before the Board. Praxis also argued that the MTT had jurisdiction 

because the Township’s inadequate notice deprived Praxis of its due-process right to 

participate in the Board review process. 

On April 12, 2022, the MTT granted the Township’s motion under MCR 

2.116(C)(4), denied Praxis’s motion, and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

The MTT concluded that (1) Praxis failed to demonstrate that MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 

211.9n(3) required a more specific explanation for the denial than one that mirrored the 

statutory language; (2) the Township’s failure to inform Praxis of the requirement to refile 

the combined document with the Board did not violate Praxis’s due-process rights because 

the lack of a combined document was not the reason that the appeal was denied; (3) notice 

of the Board’s meeting schedule was sufficient because it was explicitly provided in the 

notice of assessment as well as generally stated in the statutes; and (4) the notice of 

assessment informed Praxis that it could appeal in person, virtually, or by letter and 

provided all necessary deadlines. In sum, the MTT determined that the Township’s actions 

did not deprive Praxis of a meaningful opportunity to appeal before the Board and, 

therefore, did not deprive Praxis of its right to constitutional due process. 

The MTT also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to address the merits of Praxis’s 

argument that its equipment qualified for the EMPP exemption, finding that the Township

7 

 

provided sufficient notice of the times and dates that the Board would meet and that the 

contents of the notice of assessment, issued under MCL 211.24c(1), satisfied its obligation 

under MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 211.9n(3). The MTT determined that it was immaterial 

that the Township did not advise Praxis of the requirement to file a combined document 

because the lack of jurisdiction stemmed solely from Praxis’s failure to timely appeal in 

writing. Further, the assessor’s advice to Praxis’s agent, Karsten, that the appeal had to be 

in writing instead of a verbal communication with the assessor comported with the statutory 

requirements. Finally, the MTT concluded it was immaterial that the assessor failed to 

advise Praxis’s agents of the appeal deadline because the notice of assessment provided 

that information. 

Ultimately, the MTT concluded that Praxis’s failure to protest the EMPP denial to 

the Board deprived the MTT of jurisdiction, reasoning that “because the Tribunal has no 

equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline, 

it has no authority to grant [Praxis] the relief requested.” The MTT subsequently denied 

Praxis’s motion for reconsideration. 

Praxis appealed by right in the Court of Appeals, which reversed and remanded in 

a published opinion. Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, 348 Mich App 1, ___; ___ NW3d ___ 

(2023). The Court of Appeals held that the Township’s efforts to provide notice to Praxis 

failed to comport with its statutory obligations under MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 211.9n(3) 

and therefore deprived Praxis of due process. Id. at ___; slip op at 13. The Court of 

Appeals remedied the violation by vesting the MTT with jurisdiction to consider the 

exemption claim as a matter of equity. The Township applied for leave to appeal in this

8 

 

Court. We scheduled oral argument on the application and directed the parties to file 

supplemental briefing to address: 

(1) whether the assessor’s denial of the petitioner-appellee’s request for 

exemption as eligible manufacturing personal property satisfied the 

requirements of MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 211.9n(3) and/or due process; (2) 

if not, whether the denial notice’s failure to satisfy those requirements 

relieved the petitioner-appellee of the requirement to protest the denial at the 

2021 March Board of Review; and (3) whether the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

can exercise jurisdiction over this case. [Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, 513 Mich 

1052, 1052 (2024).] 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Judicial review of MTT decisions “is limited.” Campbell v Dep’t of Treasury, 509 

Mich 230, 237; 984 NW2d 13 (2022). “In the absence of fraud, error of law or the adoption 

of wrong principles, no appeal may be taken to any court from any final agency provided 

for the administration of property tax laws from any decision relating to valuation or 

allocation.” Const 1963, art 6, § 28. Given that no fraud is alleged, appellate review in 

this case is limited to whether the MTT committed an error of law or adopted a wrong legal 

principle. Liberty Hill Housing Corp v Livonia, 480 Mich 44, 49; 746 NW2d 282 (2008). 

All the factual findings made by the MTT are final if supported by competent and 

substantial evidence. Mt Pleasant v State Tax Comm, 477 Mich 50, 53; 729 NW2d 833 

(2007). Questions of constitutional law and statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. 

Madugula v Taub, 496 Mich 685, 695; 853 NW2d 75 (2014). Jurisdictional questions 

under MCR 2.116(C)(4) are questions of law that are also reviewed de novo. Travelers 

Ins Co v Detroit Edison Co, 465 Mich 185, 205; 631 NW2d 733 (2001).

9 

 

III. ANALYSIS 

This case concerns the subject-matter jurisdiction of the MTT. “The Tax Tribunal 

Act, MCL 205.701 et seq., defines the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Michigan 

Tax Tribunal as review of a final decision ‘of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, 

rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization under property tax laws.’ ” 

Highland-Howell Dev Co, LLC v Marion Twp, 469 Mich 673, 674; 677 NW2d 810 (2004), 

quoting MCL 205.731(a). Under MCL 205.735a(3), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in 

this section or by law, for an assessment dispute as to the valuation or exemption of 

property, the assessment must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal 

acquires jurisdiction of the dispute . . . .” 

Here, Praxis did not protest before the Board before filing a petition with the MTT, 

and the MTT consequently dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of 

Appeals determined that the Township inadequately informed Praxis of the time and 

manner for appealing the denial and that the assessor’s failure to comply with the 

provisions of MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 211.9n(3) deprived Praxis of procedural due 

process. Sixarp, 348 Mich App at ___; slip op at 10, 13. As a matter of equity, the Court 

of Appeals determined that remand to the MTT was appropriate, relying on Parkview Mem 

Ass’n v Livonia, 183 Mich App 116, 117-118; 454 NW2d 169 (1990), and its progeny.5 

Sixarp, 348 Mich App at ___; slip op at 11-12. 

 

5 See, e.g., Morehouse v Mackinaw Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of 

Appeals, issued March 17, 2009 (Docket No. 281483); Mich State Univ v Lansing, 

unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 15, 2005 (Docket 

No. 250813).

10 

 

We disagree with the Court of Appeals that the Township’s notice to Praxis failed 

to comply with due process. We, therefore, hold that because Praxis did not appeal the 

denial notice to the Board, the MTT correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction 

over the claim and that dismissal was appropriate. 

A. JURISDICTION OF THE MTT 

We begin by examining the jurisdiction of the MTT to hear Praxis’s petition. The 

relevant statutes provide that when a denial of an EMPP exemption is issued before the 

first substantive meeting of the Board, the denial must be appealed to the Board of Review. 

MCL 211.9m(3); MCL 211.9n(3). Should a petitioner not prevail on their challenge before 

the Board, “[a]n appeal of a denial by the March board of review may be made by filing a 

petition with the Michigan tax tribunal within 35 days of the denial notice.” MCL 

211.9m(2)(c); MCL 211.9n(2)(c). 

Pursuant to MCL 205.735a(3), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section or by 

law, for an assessment dispute as to the valuation or exemption of property, the assessment 

must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the 

dispute under subsection (6).” Subsection (6), in turn, states that the jurisdiction of the 

MTT in various types of assessment disputes, including those regarding commercial 

personal property, “is invoked by a party in interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition” 

by a specific deadline. MCL 205.735a(6). Finally, the MTT has exclusive and original 

jurisdiction over review of a final decision of an agency, such as the Board, relating to 

assessment or valuation. MCL 205.731(a).

11 

 

“ ‘Under the doctrine [of in pari materia], statutes that relate to the same subject or 

that share a common purpose should, if possible, be read together to create a harmonious 

body of law.’ ” Pueblo v Haas, 511 Mich 345, 357; 999 NW2d 433 (2023), quoting People 

v Mazur, 497 Mich 302, 313; 872 NW2d 201 (2015). Here, MCL 205.731, which affords 

the MTT exclusive and original jurisdiction over agency assessment and valuation 

decisions, must be read together with both MCL 205.735a, which requires an assessment 

to first be protested before the Board, and MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n, which require 

appealing an EMPP exemption denial before the Board (if the denial was issued before the 

first Board meeting) and, if the Board denies the appeal, filing a petition with the MTT. 

We agree with the MTT that it could not exercise jurisdiction because the Township’s 

assessor denied the exemption before the Board met, and Praxis failed to file an appeal 

with the Board. See MCL 211.9m(2)(c) and (3); MCL 211.9n(2)(c) and (3); MCL 

205.735a(3). 

The MTT correctly explained that “because the Tribunal has no equitable power to 

waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline, it has no authority 

to grant” Praxis’s exemption request. See Electronic Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 253 Mich 

App 538, 547-548; 656 NW2d 215 (2002), citing Fed-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 

161 Mich App 346, 359; 411 NW2d 169 (1987) (explaining that the MTT “does not have 

powers of equity”); see also Wikman v City of Novi, 413 Mich 617, 646-649; 322 NW2d 

103 (1982). However, the Court of Appeals held that because Praxis received inadequate 

notice, the requirement to protest before the Board could be excused or waived, and it 

remanded the case for plenary consideration by the MTT. Sixarp, 348 Mich App at ___;

12 

 

slip op at 12. The Court of Appeals premised its authority to waive the protest requirement 

primarily on Parkview, 183 Mich App at 120.6 

In Parkview, the city of Livonia mailed tax assessments to the petitioners two days 

after the Board of Review convened for its last day. Id. at 117-118. Although the Parkview 

Court recognized that the MTT’s exercise of jurisdiction is conditioned on an initial protest 

to the Board and the petitioners did not protest before the Board, the Court determined that 

the petitioners’ claims should be remanded to the MTT. Id. at 118-120. The panel 

premised this remedy on its conclusion that the respondents’ late notices violated due 

process, because although the assessments were valid, they were untimely mailed in 

violation of MCL 211.24c(5).7 Id. at 120. Accordingly, the late notices were not provided 

in a manner reasonably calculated to afford notice and an opportunity to be heard and 

therefore violated the taxpayer’s right to procedural due process. Id. The Parkview Court 

also relied on this Court’s remedial approach in W & E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp, 402 

 

6 The panel also relied upon Wells Fargo Rail Corp v Michigan, 344 Mich App 351, 374-

375; 1 NW3d 373 (2022), which recognized that courts’ equitable power “has traditionally 

been reserved for unusual circumstances” and applied equitable tolling to toll the period of 

limitations, remanding to the MTT for consideration of the petitioner’s claim as a timely 

filed petition. (Quotation marks and citation omitted.) In that case, there was confusion 

about where the petitioner could file its claim because it was faced with “two ostensibly 

valid statutes: one placing jurisdiction in the Court of Claims and one in the MTT” and the 

petitioner could not predict that the courts would later hold that the statute providing 

jurisdiction in the Court of Claims was implicitly repealed. Id. at 374. No such confusion 

exists in this case. 

7 This section of the statute has been amended several times since Parkview was decided 

and now appears at MCL 211.24c(4), which provides: “The assessment notice shall be 

addressed to the owner according to the records of the assessor and mailed not less than 14 

days before the meeting of the board of review. The failure to send or receive an 

assessment notice does not invalidate an assessment roll or an assessment on that property.”

13 

 

Mich 950l (1978), which remanded a petition to the MTT for plenary consideration despite 

the petitioner failing to satisfy the Board protest requirement. Parkview, 183 Mich App at 

120; see W & E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp, 77 Mich App 618, 621; 259 NW2d 160 

(1977). The Court also held that portions of MCL 205.735(1) and (2) imposed “procedural 

requirements for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” that codified exhaustion-of-

remedies principles that did not expressly limit the MTT’s jurisdiction. Parkview, 183 

Mich App at 121. 

W & E Burnside involved taxpayers whose assessments nearly doubled from 1974 

to 1975. W & E Burnside, 77 Mich App at 619-620. The taxpayers were required to first 

protest the increase before the Board in order for the MTT to have jurisdiction but were 

unable to do so “as neither had notice of the increase until well after the meetings.” Id. at 

621. Under the relevant statute, MCL 211.24c, a taxpayer was only required to be provided 

notice if more than 30% of the parcels had an assessment increase. Id. at 621, 625. The 

MTT dismissed the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Id. at 620. The 

Court of Appeals held that if the 30% threshold was met, no notice was necessary and the 

assessment was valid, but if not, the assessment was invalid, and thus, it remanded the case 

to the circuit court to determine whether the threshold was met. Id. at 624-625.8 

 

8 Both Parkview and W & E Burnside interpreted versions of MCL 205.735, which applies 

“to a proceeding before the tribunal that is commenced before January 1, 2007.” MCL 

205.735(1). MCL 205.735 is the precursor to MCL 205.735a, which applies to this case 

and governs “a proceeding before the tribunal that is commenced after December 31, 

2006.” MCL 205.735a(1). The version of MCL 205.735 that was applicable in Burnside 

provided that “[i]n the case of an assessment appeal, the valuation of the same property 

must be protested before the board of review.” MCL 205.735(1), as enacted by 1973 PA 

186. The version of MCL 205.735 that was applicable in Parkview provided that “[f]or an 

assessment dispute as to the valuation of the property or where an exemption is claimed,

14 

 

This Court issued a peremptory order reversing the Court of Appeals, which stated 

in full: 

Leave to appeal is considered May 31, 1978 and, pursuant to GCR 

1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of leave to appeal, the Court of Appeals is reversed 

and the case is remanded to the Tax Tribunal. If the tribunal determines a 

notice should have been sent, the assessment increase is invalid and plaintiff 

is entitled to a refund. If the tribunal determines no notice was required, the 

tribunal must still determine whether or not the assessment increase was 

excessive, and that there is no other bar to granting relief. [W & E Burnside, 

402 Mich at 950l]. 

In sum, this Court ordered the MTT to review the merits despite the taxpayer’s failure to 

first protest before the Board in a case where the respondent provided no notice of the 

assessment increase to petitioners in advance of the Board’s meeting times—effectively 

depriving them of the right to be heard.9 

 

the assessment must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal may 

acquire jurisdiction of the dispute . . . .” MCL 205.735(1), as amended by 1987 PA 23. 

MCL 205.735(2) currently provides that “[f]or an assessment dispute as to the valuation of 

property or if an exemption is claimed, the assessment must be protested before the board 

of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the dispute . . . .” See 2006 PA 174. 

We analyze pre-MCL 205.735a cases because the statute and its precursor contain 

materially similar language concerning the protest requirements. Compare MCL 

205.735(1), as enacted by 1973 PA 186; MCL 205.735(1), as amended by 1987 PA 23; 

and MCL 205.735(2) with MCL 205.735a(3). 

9 We observe that the Legislature knows how to enact specific exceptions to the general 

jurisdictional protest requirement when it wishes to do so. For instance, when an 

assessment dispute relates to the “valuation of property that is subject to taxation” under 

the Commercial Redevelopment Act, MCL 207.651 et seq., or other enumerated statutes, 

“the assessment may be protested before the board of review or appealed directly to the 

tribunal without protest before the board of review . . . .” MCL 205.735a(4)(c) (emphasis 

added). But the Legislature did not craft such an exception for EMPP cases. We thus find 

that the “Legislature’s statement that the assessment may be protested to the board or 

appealed directly to the Tax Tribunal without protest to the board [in MCL 205.735a(4)] 

demonstrates that the direct appeal is an exception to, not a replacement of, the requirement

15 

 

The Legislature has clearly mandated that the requirement for appeal in the MTT 

under MCL 205.735a(3) is jurisdictional. The statute plainly states that “the assessment 

must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of 

the dispute.” MCL 205.735a(3) (emphasis added). As a result, MCL 205.735a(3) “is not 

a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that governs when and how a petitioner 

invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” See Electronic Data Sys, 253 Mich App at 542. 

We therefore overrule Parkview to the extent that it incorrectly held that the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735, the precursor to MCL 205.735a, is a mere “procedural 

requirement[] for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and not an express limitation 

on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Parkview, 183 Mich App at 121.10 Instead, the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if necessary to remedy 

a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the taxpayer of their ability to invoke 

the right to protest. See Highland-Howell Dev Co, LLC v Marion Twp, 478 Mich 932, 933 

(2007) (citing W & E Burnside for the proposition that “the statutes at issue here cannot be 

construed in a manner that would deny petitioner due process of law”); Wikman, 413 Mich 

at 648 (considering that “there may be an extraordinary case which justifies the exercise of 

equity jurisdiction in contravention of a statute”). 

In this case, Praxis did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the MTT to exercise 

jurisdiction because it did not protest before the Board. Therefore, Praxis must demonstrate 

 

stated under MCL 205.735a(3).” New Covert Generating Co, LLC v Covert Twp, 334 

Mich App 24, 54; 964 NW2d 378 (2020). 

10 See also Morehouse, unpub op at 4 (adopting “the approach set forth in Parkview, except 

for that portion of Parkview[’s] analysis that concludes the requirements of MCL 205.735 

are procedural, not jurisdictional”).

16 

 

that respondent deprived it of its right to constitutional due process to invoke this Court’s 

judicial power to waive the jurisdictional requirements. 

B. DUE PROCESS 

We now turn to whether the Township’s notice to Praxis satisfied statutory 

requirements and, relatedly, due process. Praxis claimed personal property exemptions 

under the former versions of MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n.11 The text of these two 

provisions is nearly identical, differing only in the type of personal property exempted. 

MCL 211.9m concerns new manufacturing personal property, while MCL 211.9n concerns 

previously existing manufacturing personal property. Regarding denials of the 

exemptions, the statutes (using materially identical language) explained: 

If the assessor of the township or city believes that personal property 

for which the form claiming an exemption is timely filed each year under 

subsection (2)(c) is not qualified new personal property or the form filed was 

incomplete, the assessor may deny that claim for exemption by notifying the 

person that filed the form in writing of the reason for the denial and advising 

the person that the denial shall[12] be appealed to the board of review under 

section 30[13] by filing a combined document as prescribed under subsection 

(2).[14] [MCL 211.9m(3); see also MCL 211.9n(3)]. 

 

11 MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n, as enacted by 2017 PA 261, effective December 31, 

2017. The Legislature has since amended MCL 211.9m(3) and MCL 211.9n(3), changing 

only the word “shall” to “must.” See 2021 PA 153, effective December 27, 2021. Because 

the statutes were not amended until after Praxis applied for the exemption, the former 

versions of the statutes apply in this case and are cited in this opinion unless otherwise 

noted. 

12 See note 11 of this opinion. 

13 Section 30 (MCL 211.30) sets forth when the Board of Review must meet and how it 

performs its review, including its review of personal property exemptions. 

14 The combined document is the same form that Praxis used to claim the exemption. MCL 

211.9m(2) (“A person shall claim the exemption under this section and section 9n by filing

17 

 

Stated differently, these statutes require that an assessor’s denial of an EMPP exemption 

(1) be in a writing sent to the person who filed the form, (2) contain a statement of “the 

reason for the denial,” and (3) advise the person that they have the right to appeal the denial 

to the Board under MCL 211.30 by “filing a combined document” in the manner required 

by MCL 211.9m(2) and MCL 211.9n(2). 

Against this statutory backdrop, the deprivation of “a significant property interest 

cannot occur except by due process of law.” Bonner v City of Brighton, 495 Mich 209, 

235; 848 NW2d 380 (2014). See also US Const, Am XIV (declaring that the government 

shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”); 

Const 1963, art 1, § 17 (“No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, 

without due process of law.”).15 The principle of fundamental fairness is the essence of 

procedural due process. Lassiter v Dep’t of Social Servs of Durham Co, 452 US 18, 24; 

101 S Ct 2153; 68 L Ed 2d 640 (1981). At a minimum, procedural due process requires 

notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and manner. Bonner, 495 Mich 

at 235. Procedural due process is a flexible concept, however, and determining what 

process is due in a particular case depends on the nature of the proceeding, the risks and 

 

each year a combined document that includes: the form to claim the exemption under this 

section and section 9n, a report of the fair market value and year of acquisition by the first 

owner of qualified new personal property, and for any year before 2023, a statement under 

section 19.”). See also MCL 211.9n(2). 

15 We have recognized the “textual similarities between the state and federal Due Process 

Clauses . . . .” Bauserman v Unemployment Ins Agency, 503 Mich 169, 186 n 12; 931 

NW2d 539 (2019). Consequently, when interpreting the Due Process Clause of the 

Michigan Constitution, we may “find persuasive” federal precedent interpreting the Due 

Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Id.

18 

 

costs involved, and the private and governmental interests that might be affected. By Lo 

Oil Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 267 Mich App 19, 29; 703 NW2d 822 (2005).16 

As to constitutionally sufficient notice, this Court has explained further: 

A fundamental requirement of due process in . . . proceedings [that seek to 

take property from its owner] is “notice reasonably calculated, under all the 

circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and 

afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v Central 

Hanover Bank & Trust Co, 339 US 306, 314; 70 S Ct 652; 94 L Ed 865 

(1950). Interested parties are “entitled to have the [government] employ such 

means ‘as one desirous of actually informing [them] might reasonably adopt’ 

to notify [them] of the pendency of the proceedings.” Dow v Michigan, 396 

Mich 192; 240 NW2d 450 (1976), quoting Mullane, [339 US] at 315. That 

is, the means employed to notify interested parties must be more than a mere 

gesture; they must be means that one who actually desires to inform the 

interested parties might reasonably employ to accomplish actual notice. 

Mullane, [339 US] at 315. However, “[d]ue process does not require that a 

property owner receive actual notice before the government may take his 

property.” Jones[ v Flowers, 547 US 220, 226; 126 S Ct 1708; 164 L Ed 2d 

415 (2006)]. [Sidun v Wayne Co Treasurer, 481 Mich 503, 509; 751 NW2d 

453 (2008).] 

As discussed earlier, the statutes require a taxing authority’s assessor to notify a 

taxpayer (1) in writing (2) of the reason for the denial and (3) advise the petitioner that the 

denial must be appealed to the Board by filing a combined document. MCL 211.9m(3); 

 

16 Michigan courts follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mathews v 

Eldridge, 424 US 319; 96 S Ct 893; 47 L Ed 2d 18 (1976), which set forth three factors 

that must be considered to determine whether a litigant has been afforded due process: 

“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, 

the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures 

used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural 

safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function 

involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or 

substitute procedural requirement would entail.” [Bonner, 495 Mich at 235, 

quoting Mathews, 424 US at 334-335.]

19 

 

MCL 211.9n(3). In this case, there is no dispute that the written notice satisfied the first 

requirement. As for the second requirement, the notice stated the reason for the denial—

that the personal property claimed did not meet the statutory definition of EMPP under 

MCL 211.9m or MCL 211.9n. Praxis argues that the reason for denial was insufficient. 

However, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the statutory language does not require 

more detail than that provided by the assessor as to why he denied the exemption. Sixarp, 

348 Mich App at ___; slip op at 10. Instead, the statutes simply state that the written denial 

must contain “the reason for the denial.” MCL 211.9m(3); MCL 211.9n(3). No specific 

quantum of detail is required. See McQueer v Perfect Fence Co, 502 Mich 276, 286; 917 

NW2d 584 (2018) (“[W]here the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the statute 

must be applied as written. [The] court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that 

is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute 

itself.”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). And, as the MTT explained, the language 

used in the denial notice mirrors the statutory language that permits the assessor to deny an 

exemption request if the property is not qualified new or previously existing property or if 

the filed form was incomplete. MCL 211.9m(3); MCL 211.9n(3). 

In addition to satisfying these statutory requirements, we do not believe that the 

stated reason for denial, albeit succinct, violates Praxis’s procedural due-process rights. 

Praxis was neither erroneously deprived nor at risk of being erroneously deprived of the 

claimed exemptions, given that the denial notice informed Praxis that it could avail itself 

of the Board’s appeal process and make the case for why its equipment met the statutory 

definition of EMPP. See Bonner, 495 Mich at 235.

20 

 

The third requirement is that the assessor’s denial must advise the petitioner that the 

denial must be appealed to the Board and that this must be accomplished by filing a 

combined document. MCL 211.9m(3); MCL 211.9n(3). The notice in this case advised 

Praxis that it must appeal to the Board but omitted specific meeting dates and times. The 

notice also omitted the statutory requirement to refile the combined document that was 

submitted with the exemption request. We recognize that the denial notice was flawed 

insofar as it failed to state that refiling the combined document was a requirement for 

protesting the denial and that it could have included more detailed information about when 

the Board would meet. But, as stated, due process is a flexible concept, and mechanically 

applying the denial notice requirements is insufficient to review whether due process has 

been provided. See By Lo Oil Co, 267 Mich App at 29. Rather, we must inquire into all 

the particular facts of the notice provided to Praxis because due process “negates any 

concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” See 

In re Adams Estate, 257 Mich App 230, 234; 667 NW2d 904 (2003), quoting Bd of 

Curators of Univ of Missouri v Horowitz, 435 US 78, 86; 98 S Ct 948; 55 L Ed 2d 124 

(1978) (quotation marks omitted). 

The “Notification of Taxpayers [sic] Right of Appeal” section of the denial notice 

stated that a taxpayer may appeal an assessor’s denial to the Board under MCL 211.30, and 

that filing such a protest was necessary to protect the right to further appeal an EMPP 

exemption dispute in the MTT. Despite the absence of information as to the Board’s 

meeting times and dates, the notice clearly explained that appealing the denial before the 

Board was required to preserve appellate rights.

21 

 

In addition, as the MTT found, Praxis had timely actual notice of the Board’s 

meeting dates and times, the deadlines for filing a letter protest or scheduling an 

appearance, and the valuation of the property without the requested exemption. The 

Township sent Praxis a separate notice of assessment because the taxable value of the 

property had increased. See MCL 211.24c and MCL 211.34c. This notice explained that 

the assessment for the personal property (for which Praxis had been denied an exemption) 

was updated on February 17, 2021 (about a week after the EMPP exemption denial notice 

was mailed), and that “[i]f you believe these values are incorrect you may appeal to the 

board of review . . . .” See MCL 211.34c(6) (“An owner of any assessable property who 

disputes the classification of that parcel shall notify the assessor and may protest the 

assigned classification to the March board of review.”). The notice of assessment included 

particularized information about the Board’s meeting dates, times, deadlines, and other 

details. And after setting forth this information, the notice stated that “[f]iling a protest 

with the Board of Review is necessary to protect your right to further appeal valuation and 

exemption disputes to the Michigan Tax Tribunal . . . .” (Emphasis added.) The Township 

mailed this notice more than 14 days before the Board’s meeting. See MCL 211.24c(4). 

The MTT’s determination that Praxis received the notice of assessment is supported by the 

record, and Praxis does not dispute receiving it. 

The Court of Appeals and Praxis relied in part on the Grand Rapids Press posting 

that included incorrect dates to conclude that the Township deprived Praxis of due process 

by creating confusion about when the Board would meet. Although the posting 

inaccurately stated in the bottom portion that appointments could be made “from March 

1th [sic] through March 10th,” the boldface body of the posting specified Board meeting

22 

 

times on March 8, 2021, and March 9, 2021, only. It is therefore discernable from the face 

of the posting itself that its closing sentence—that appointments could be scheduled by 

contacting the assessor’s office until March 10—was plainly erroneous. Moreover, 

although Praxis emailed its request for an appointment to respondent’s assessor on March 

10, there is no evidence that Praxis did so in reliance on the inaccurate portion of the 

posting.17 

Praxis also argues that Baker’s communications with Praxis’s agents compounded 

the confusion because Baker encouraged the agents to file a letter appeal without providing 

a deadline for doing so. The Court of Appeals also relied on this fact. This argument is 

misplaced, however, because Baker provided statutorily accurate information to Karsten 

and Pohl when advising them to file a written letter appeal. See MCL 211.9m(3); MCL 

211.9n(3). Baker was not required by statute to provide more information, nor did he 

provide inaccurate information. Viewing the circumstances as a whole—and, notably, the 

fact that Praxis received actual notice via the notice of assessment—Baker’s failure to 

provide deadlines, give a hearing date, or advise Praxis’s agents that the combined 

document had to be refiled to perfect the appeal did not deprive Praxis of due process. 

Praxis’s final argument on this issue concerns the undisputed fact that it was not 

advised of the requirement to file a combined document with its appeal—either in the 

denial notice or by Baker. However, as the MTT correctly held, Praxis did not appear 

 

17 Praxis never argued that it relied on the erroneous posting in its filings with the MTT, 

and neither Karsten nor Pohl asserted in their affidavits that they were confused by or relied 

on the posting. We do not foreclose the possibility that erroneous publications by a local 

taxing authority could affect the due-process analysis when a taxpayer relies on the error 

to their detriment, but there is no evidence that this happened here.

23 

 

before the Board because it failed to file a timely written appeal, not because it failed to 

file a combined document. Thus, Praxis was not denied the opportunity to meaningfully 

challenge the denial on this basis and therefore was not denied due process.18 

Taken together, the Township’s denial notice, which stated that protest to the March 

Board of Review was required to protect appellate rights; the notice of assessment, which 

provided specific requirements for perfecting the protest; and the information provided by 

Baker to Praxis’s agents, which was accurate (if less than complete), sufficed to protect 

Praxis’s due-process rights. That is, the Township’s notice efforts were “reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances,” to apprise Praxis of the appeal process and to 

“afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Sidun, 481 Mich at 509 (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). While actual notice is not required for due process, Jones, 

547 US at 226, “[f]undamental requirements of due process are satisfied if a party received 

actual notice,” Gillie v Genessee Co Treasurer, 277 Mich App 333, 356 n 12; 745 NW2d 

137 (2007), disavowed in part on other grounds by 2 Crooked Creek, LLC v Cass Co 

Treasurer, 507 Mich 1 (2021). Further, “if timely actual notice has been achieved, defects 

in how it was served are rendered harmless.” In re Application of Int’l Transmission Co, 

304 Mich App 561, 568; 847 NW2d 684 (2014). Despite some shortcomings in the denial 

notice, including its failure to advise Praxis of the requirement to submit a combined 

document, Praxis received actual notice of the deadline and schedule for perfecting a 

written appeal to the Board in the notice of assessment. We therefore hold that Praxis’s 

 

18 For this same reason, Praxis was not prevented from meaningfully challenging the denial 

by respondent’s omission of a more specific statement of the reason for denial in the denial 

notice.

24 

 

due-process rights were not violated. Finding no constitutional violation, we further hold 

that there is no basis to waive the statutory jurisdictional requirement of protesting to the 

Board before proceeding to the MTT. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Because Praxis failed to timely protest the exemption denial to the March Board of 

Review, and the notice provided by the Township to Praxis satisfied due process, we hold 

that the MTT did not have jurisdiction to hear Praxis’s claim. We therefore reverse the 

Court of Appeals judgment and reinstate the MTT’s order dismissing the petition for lack 

of jurisdiction. 

 

 

Megan K. Cavanagh 

 

Elizabeth T. Clement 

 

Brian K. Zahra 

 

Richard H. Bernstein 

 

Elizabeth M. Welch 

 

Kyra H. Bolden 

 

 

 

THOMAS, J., did not participate because the Court considered this case before she 

assumed office.

Exhibit B

Meckigun Dmpartmmnt of Tram 

rey i 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

Thee bom mw 

mama under the monty of Pubic Act X09 of 1883 Bec 211 24c ana Sac 211 3c. at marvie] THe 

4 

0 Tod! SeaRsamant nohom 10 bi Ad by Pe bors! avsesser 

FROM CITY OF MARQUETTE 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

DULCEE RANTA ASSESSOR 

PARCEL NUMBER 

1510892 

300 WEST BARAGA AVENUE 

PROPERTY ADDRESS 

MARQUETTE, MI 49855 

2401 LAKESHORE BLVD A2 

MARQUETTE, MI 49855 

SCHOOL DISTRICT CODE 

52170 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESSPERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL 

EXEMPTIONS 

NYSTROM, VINCENT 

” 

Praoiobi Neola’ 

2401 N LAKESHORE BLVD A2 

RR 

— 

MARQUETTE Wi 40855 

Exempt As MBT Industral Parsonar’. 

00% 

% Exempt As “MBT Commercial Personal”: 

00% 

Se 

A-OlNE Yuan or Ruri 

[1 Yes 

No 

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property”. 

[7] Yes 

 [X] No 

Exempt As "Development Property”: 

[1 Yes 

No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

UNIT 2 

THE RESIDENCES AT NORTH HARBOR CONDOMINIUM 

ACCORDING 

TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY 

IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

407 

Residential 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION IF DIFFERENT: 

002 

Ref. 

Real 

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill 

PRIOR AMOUNT 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

for 

the 2026 year by approximately. §15463 

YEAR 

205 

AMOUNTYEAR 

sop | 

COREY YEAR 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

0 

403,500 

403 500 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

0 

403,500 

3_TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

0 

[ 

403.500 

403,500 

5. WAS THERE A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP I1g025 

THAT RESULTED IN A TAXABLE VALUE UNCAPPING? [7] Yes Oo No 

6. Assessor Change Reason(s): 

New Construction 

NEW CUNSTRUCTION 

The 2026 Inflation rate Multiplier 

is: 1.027 

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be directed to the Following 

ame, 

Telephone Number 

Rages 

DULCEE RANTA 

(S06) 225-8379 

ASSESSING@MARQUETTEMI 

GOV 

March Board of Review Appeal Information. The Beard of Review will meet at the following dates and times: 

YOUR ASSESSMENT CHANGED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S) New Construction. BOARD OF REVIEW SESSIONS: 

MONDAY, MARCH 08, 2026, 8:00 AM TO NOON AND 1:30 PM TO 4:30 PM, TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2028, 1:00 PM TO 4:00 PM AND 

6:00 PM TO 9.00 PM WRITTEN APPEALS ARE ACCEPTED. PLEASE CALL 806-225-8379 WITH ANY QUESTIONS 

IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING PROPOSAL A OF 1984 AND UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE, 

PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE: WWW.MARQUETTEMI GOV UNDER DEPARTMENTS, FINANCIAL SERVICES, ASSESSING, 

PROPERTY OWNER RESOURCES

Exhibit C

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CHIP PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Docket No. 26- 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

Respondent. 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Williams Williams Rattner 

& Plunkett, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Affidavit of Vincent Nystrom 

Vincent Nystrom, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 

1. 

I have personal knowledge 

of and am competent 

to 

testify 

to the 

matters stated in this Affidavit. 

2. 

I am the owner of property identified as 2401 N. Lakeshore Blvd., Unit 

A2, Marquette, Michigan 49855, which is tax parcel number 1510892 (the “Subject 

Property”).

4. 

The Subject Property is my principal residence. 

5. 

The Subject Property is the mailing address that the City of Marquette 

maintains on file for me, including on file with the City of Marquette assessing 

office. This is reflected on documents including the Subject Property’s 2026 notice of 

assessment, a copy of which is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 1. 

6. 

I regularly receive mail through the United States Postal Service at 

the Subject Property, and I check the mail regularly. 

No other person receives mail 

for me at the Subject Property. 

7. 

To the best of my knowledge, 

I did not receive a notice of assessment 

for the Subject Property in the mail, delivered to the Subject Property, before March 

10, 2026. 

8. 

I recall receiving a notice of assessment for the Subject Property in the 

mail on a date in late March 2026. 

9. 

When 

I received the notice of assessment in the mail, 

I prepared an 

appeal dated April 1, 2026, and submitted that to the City. 

When I submitted the 

appeal to the City of Marquette, the City’s representatives advised that my next 

opportunity to appeal would be in March 2027. 

10. 

I did not have notice of the Subject Property's 2026 assessment in time 

to protest the assessment to the City of Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review.

12. 

Accordingly, 

I could not have possibly timely appealed the Subject 

Property’s 2026 assessment to the City of Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review. 

Vincent Nystrom 

This Affidavit was signed and sworn before me on June a5 2026, by Vincent 

Nystrom. 

MONICA M.D 

Notary Public 

"MONIGA M. DINKO 

7] 

My Commission 

Expires Oct. 

Acting In the County pd 

S172 on va

Exhibit D

April 1, 2026 

 

 

 

Dulcee Ranta, Assessor 

City of Marquette 

300 West Baraga Avenue 

Marquette, MI 49855 

 

Re: 

Appeal of 2026 Assessment – Parcel #1510892 

Property: 2401 N Lakeshore Blvd, Unit 2, Marquette, MI 

 

Dear Ms. Ranta and Board of Review, 

 

The current assessment attached reflects a State Equalized Value (SEV) of $403,500, implying a market value of 

approximately $807,000. I respectfully believe this significantly exceeds the property’s true cash value. 

 

The following factors support this conclusion: 

 

1. Recent Purchase 

• 

Purchased December 1, 2025 for $697,900. 

• 

Represents a recent arm’s-length, open-market transaction. 

• 

Under Michigan assessment standards, a recent sale between unrelated parties is the most reliable 

indicator of true cash value. 

 

2. Independent Appraisal 

• 

March 19, 2026 appraisal concluded $712,000 market value. 

• 

Conducted under standard lending requirements. 

• 

Full appraisal is attached. 

• 

The independent appraisal supports the recent purchase price and confirms a market value 

consistent with, and supportive of, the recent transaction. 

 

3. Comparable Units 

• 

Other comparable two-bedroom units within the same building—of similar size, layout, and 

location—are currently listed at approximately $669,900. 

• 

The subject unit includes upgrades (e.g., fireplace), which contributed to the higher purchase price 

relative to base units. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

These comparable listings, combined with my recent purchase and independent appraisal, 

consistently indicate a market value materially below the City’s implied value of approximately 

$807,000.

4. Other Units Within Building 

• 

Four 4-bedroom, approximately 2,095 sq ft units listed at $799,000 

• 

This further demonstrates that significantly larger units command higher values, and supports that a 

smaller two-bedroom unit should not be assessed at a comparable level. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion: A reasonable estimate of market value is $697,900, as established by the recent arm’s-length 

purchase. The independent appraisal of $712,000 further supports that the property’s value is materially below 

the City’s implied value of approximately $807,000. 

 

Requested: 

• 

True Cash Value: $697,900 

• 

SEV/Taxable Value: $349,000 

 

I respectfully request that the assessment be adjusted to reflect the recent arm’s-length transaction and 

supporting market evidence. Thank you for your consideration. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 

 

Vincent Nystrom 

2401 North Lakeshore Blvd, Unit 2 

Marquette, MI 49855 

M 734.255.7167

Mcrgen Departmmnt of Traasry 

1019 (Re 10-25 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, 

Thin form Ee 

der Pw mony 

of Putte Act 308 of 1853 Sec 

2 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

and Property Classification 

11 24c wn floc 211 3c at wmerded 

Tha is # model susesament hobo 10 ba aed by Pe cal assesses 

L-4400 

FROM CITY OF MARQUETTE 

DULCEE RANTA, ASSESSOR 

300 WEST BARAGA AVENUE 

MARQUETTE, MI 49855 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

PARCEL NUMBER 

1510892 

PROPERTY ADDRESS 

2401 LAKESHORE BLVD A2 

MARQUETTE, MI 49855 

SCHOOL DISTRICT CODE 

52170 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL 

NYSTROM, VINCENT 

» 

As 

Pisoni 

2401 N LAKESHORE BLVD A2 

% Exempt 

As "Qualified Agricultural Property”: 

MARQUETTE MI 49855 

wea 

pT, 

i 

% Exempt As "MBT Commercial 

Personal”: 

Exempt As “Disabled Veteran or Surviving 

[1 Yes 

Spouse”: 

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property”: 

[] Yes 

[X No 

Exempt As "Development Property”: 

[Yes 

[X] No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

UNIT 2 

THE RESIDENCES AT NORTH HARBOR CONDOMINIUM 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

407 

Residential 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION IF DIFFERENT; 

002 

Ref. 

Real 

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill 

PRIOR AMOUNT 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

on 

forthe 2026 year by approximately: §15463 

YEAR 

2008 

AMOUNT YEAR. 

100g 

CURRENT YEAR 

1. 

TAXABLE VALUE: 

0 

403,500 

403,500 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

0 

403,500 

403 500 

3. 

TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

[) 

403.500] 

403.500 

5. 

WAS THERE A TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP 112025 

THAT RESULTED IN A TAXABLE VALUE UNCAPPING? [] Yes Oa No 

6. Assessor Change Reason(s): 

New Construction 

NEW CUNSTRUCTION 

The 2026 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.027 

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be directed to the Following: 

Name 

Telephone Number 

[Emad Address. 

DULCEE RANTA 

(906) 225-8379 

ASSESSING@MARQUETTEMI.GOV 

March Board of Review Appeal Information. The Beard of Review will meet at the following dates and times: 

YOUR ASSESSMENT CHANGED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON(S): New Construction. BOARD OF REVIEW SESSIONS: 

MONDAY, MARCH 08, 2026, 9:00 AM TO NOON AND 1:30 PM TO 4:30 PM, TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2028, 1:00 PM TO 4:00 PM AND 

6:00 PM TO 9.00 PM. WRITTEN APPEALS ARE ACCEPTED. PLEASE CALL 906-225-8379 WITH ANY QUESTIONS 

IF YOU NEED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING PROPOSAL A OF 1994 AND UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE, 

PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE. WWW.MARQUETTEMI GOV UNDER DEPARTMENTS, FINANCIAL SERVICES, ASSESSING, 

PROPERTY OWNER RESOURCES

Nicolet National Bank

 NMLS# - 411069

Certificate of Appraiser Independence 

Inspection date:

Order # :

Borrower name:

Property Address:

Nicolet National Bank certifies that the above referenced appraisal has been completed in compliance with all current 

appraisal independence requirements as defined by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the 

Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration, in 

strict adherence to our non-influence policy and process: 

•

No employee, director, officer or agent of the lender or any other third party acting as joint venture partner, 

independent contractor, appraisal company, appraisal management company or partner on behalf of the lender, 

has influenced or attempted to influence the development, reporting, result, or review of the appraisal in any 

manner. 

•

The Lender/Client named on the appraisal report submitted the appraisal order through a secure self-managed 

appraisal software platform, or through approved and compliant 3rd party integration. 

•

Appraiser selection was performed by a non-compensated member of Nicolet National Bank. Appraiser selection 

was performed utilizing a selection methodology of management-approved policies based on the location of the 

subject property, appraiser availability and historical quality and performance metrics. 

•

The appraiser’s compensation was not in any way dependent on the value arrived at or the closing of the loan. 

The appraiser was compensated directly by the Nicolet National Bank and not by a Nicolet National Bank staff 

member that receives compensation based on loan sales. 

•

The terms and conditions of the engagement contract between the Nicolet National Bank and the appraiser 

prohibit the appraiser from inappropriate communication with Nicolet National Bank origination staff or attempting 

to obtain value/loan information from the borrower/property owner. 

•

No estimate regarding the Subject Property's value, proposed loan amount or proposed loan-to-value ratio was 

provided or communicated by Nicolet National Bank to the appraiser. 

•

For all transactions: By proper use of a secure self-managed appraisal software platform, Nicolet National Bank’s 

loan production staff is unaware of the identity of the appraiser until the final appraisal report is delivered. Likewise 

the appraiser is provided with only the Nicolet National Bank's company name and address for inclusion in the 

appraisal report and is never provided with the identity or contact information of the originator of the loan. For 

purchase transactions, the purchase agreement was provided to the appraiser as required by USPAP Standards 

Rule 1-5(a). 

•

All communication between the selected appraiser and Nicolet National Bank was conducted through Nicolet 

National Bank's Appraisal Department. Nicolet National Bank is unaware of any communication to the appraiser for 

this appraisal assignment made by anyone that is in violation of the terms of current Appraiser Independence 

Requirements.

Corporate Address:

111 N. Washington Street

Green Bay, WI 54301

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd Unit 2

Marquette, MI 49855

Vincent Carl Nystrom

EM056804

File No.

261150A

A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING - STAND ALONE CONDOMINIUM

OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette, MI 49855

for

Nicolet National Bank

111 N. Washington Street

Green Bay, WI 54301

as of

03/19/2026

by

Michelle Y. Swanson

Certified Residential Appraiser

MI Certification #1204068513

License Expiration: 07/31/2026

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

201 Rublein Street, Suite B

Marquette, MI 49855

Visit our website at: https://appraisalassociatesmqt.com

Page 1 of 30

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

201 Rublein Street, Suite B

Marquette, MI 49855

(906) 228-3969

03/31/2026

Nicolet National Bank

111 N. Washington Street

Green Bay, WI

54301

Property -

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette, MI 49855

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

File No. -

261150A

Case No. -

Dear Sir or Madam:

In accordance with your request, I have prepared an appraisal of the real property located at 2401 N Lakeshore 

Blvd., #2, Marquette, MI 49855.

The attached report contains the description, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions, final opinion of 

value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications.

The purpose of the appraisal is to provide an opinion of the market value of the property, as improved. The 

property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements.

An inspection of the property and a study of pertinent factors, including valuation trends and an analysis of 

neighborhood data, led the appraiser to the conclusion that the market value, as of 03/19/2026 is :

$712,000

It has been an absolute pleasure to assist you with your appraisal needs. If I may be of further service to you 

please do not hesitate to contract me.

Respectfully submitted,

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

MI Certification #1204068513

Certified Residential Appraiser

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Michelle Y. Swanson

261150A

Page 2 of 30

S

U

B

J

E

C

T

C

O

N

T

R

A

C

T

N

E

I

G

H

B

O

R

H

O

O

D

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

S

I

T

E

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

I

N

F

O

R

M

A

T

I

O

N

File #

The purpose of this summary appraisal report is to provide the lender/client with an accurate, and adequately supported, opinion of the market value of the subject property.

Property Address

Unit #

City

State

Zip Code

Borrower

Owner of Public Record

County

Legal Description

Assessor's Parcel #

Tax Year

R.E. Taxes $

Project Name

Phase #

Map Reference

Census Tract

Special Assessments $

HOA $

Occupant

Owner

Tenant

Vacant

per year

per month

Property Rights Appraised

Fee Simple

Leasehold

Other (describe)

Assignment Type

Purchase Transaction

Refinance Transaction

Other (describe)

Lender/Client

Address

Is the subject property currently offered for sale or has it been offered for sale in the twelve months prior to the effective date of this appraisal?

Yes

No

Report data source(s) used, offering price(s), and date(s).

I

did

did not analyze the contract for sale for the subject purchase transaction. Explain the results of the analysis of the contract for sale or why the analysis was not

performed.

Is the property seller the current owner?

Contract Price $

Date of Contract

Yes

No Data Source(s)

Is there any financial assistance (loan charges, sale concessions, gift or downpayment assistance, etc.) to be paid by any party on behalf of the borrower?

Yes

No

If Yes, report the total dollar amount and describe the items to be paid.

Note: Race and the racial composition of the neighborhood are not appraisal factors.

Present Land Use %

Condominium Housing

Condominium Unit Housing Trends

Neighborhood Characteristics

Location

Urban

Suburban

Rural

Property Values

Increasing

Stable

Declining

PRICE

AGE

One-Unit

%

2-4 Unit

Built-Up

Over 75%

25-75%

Under 25%

Shortage

In Balance

Over Supply

$(000)

(yrs)

%

Over 6 mths

Growth

Rapid

Stable

Slow

Marketing Time

Under 3 mths

3-6 mths

Low

%

Multi-Family

Neighborhood Boundaries

High

%

Commercial

Pred.

%

Other

Neighborhood Description

Market Conditions (including support for the above conclusions)

Topography

Size

Density

View

Specific Zoning Classification

Zoning Description

Legal Nonconforming - Do the zoning regulations permit rebuilding to the current density?

Zoning Compliance

Legal

Yes

No

No Zoning

Illegal (describe)

Is the highest and best use of subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use?

Yes

Off-site Improvements—Type

Utilities

Public

Public

Private

Electricity

Water

Street

Gas

Sanitary Sewer

Alley

FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area

FEMA Flood Zone

Yes

No

FEMA Map #

FEMA Map Date

Are the utilities and off-site improvements typical for the market area?

Yes

Are there any adverse site conditions or external factors (easements, encroachments, environmental conditions, land uses, etc.)?

Yes

Data source(s) for project information

Project Description

Detached

Row or Townhouse

Garden

Mid-Rise

High-Rise

Other (describe)

If Project Incomplete

If Project Completed

Subject Phase

General Description 

# of Stories

Exterior Walls

# of Units

# of Phases

# of Planned Phases

# of Elevators

Roof Surface

# of Units Completed

# of Units

# of Planned Units

Existing

Proposed Total # Parking

# of Units For Sale

# of Units for Sale

# of Units for Sale

Under Construction

Ratio (spaces/units)

# of Units Sold

# of Units Sold

# of Units Sold

Year Built

Type

# of Units Rented

# of Units Rented

# of Units Rented

Effective Age

Guest Parking

# of Owner Occupied Units

# of Owner Occupied Units

# of Owner Occupied Units

Project Primary Occupancy

Principle Residence

Second Home or Recreational

Tenant

Is the developer/builder in control of the Homeowners’ Association (HOA)?

Yes

No

Management Group –

Homeowners' Association

Developer

Management Agent – Provide name of management company.

Does any single entity (the same individual, investor group, corporation, etc.) own more than 10% of the total units in the project?

Yes

No

Was the project created by the conversion of an existing building(s) into a condominium?

Yes

No

If Yes, describe the original use and the date of conversion.

Are the units, common elements, and recreation facilities complete (including any planned rehabilitation for a condominium conversion)?

Yes

Yes

No

Is there any commercial space in the project?

If Yes, describe and indicate the overall percentage of the commercial space.

Fannie Mae Form 1073 March 2005

Freddie Mac Form 465 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011

Page 1 of 6

General Description 

If Yes, describe

No

If No, describe

No

If Yes, describe

No

If No, describe

Demand/Supply

Individual Condominium Unit Appraisal Report

Other (describe)

Public

Other (describe)

No

If No, describe

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd.

2

Marquette

MI

49855

Vincent Carl Nystrom

Chip Properties LLC

Marquette

Lengthy Legal Description; See Addendum for Full Legal Description

1510891

2024

8,729

North Harbor

1

26-103

6

0

400

Nicolet National Bank

111 N. Washington Street, Green Bay, WI 54301

DOM 441;MLS#50145764; The subject property was listed on 06/18/2024 for $669,900, 

with no reductions and the property sold on 12/01/2025 for $697,900.

30

10

400

0

25

Dead River- North; Lake Superior- East; US-41- South; McClellan 

Street- West

900

20

25

720

10

10

The immediate area contains average to good quality homes. The condominiums in the area and good to excellent 

quality and condition. There is some low impact commercial located nearby. The subject is located within a 5 minute commute to all of 

the amenities located in the Marquette area. Lake Superior and the bike path is located across the street from the subject.

Market conditions/time adjustments in this appraisal are supported by the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency’s House Price Index (FHFA HPI®) data for the subject’s geographic region (East North Central). The table 

and graph of this market data is included in this report (see addendum).

Level-A

Adequate For Improvement

Average

B;Wtr;Res

PUD

Planned Urban Development

See addendum for Zoning description.

Subject is a condo residential dwelling located in "PUD" zoning; the highest and best use is considered to be residential.

Paved

None

A

26103C0485E

06/06/2024

Utilities were on/functional and are typical for this area.

This 

appraisal was developed using the extraordinary assumption that the parcel being valued is assumed free of any environmental 

hazards. The appraiser is not aware of any environmental screening of the property as of the effective date of the appraisal. There are 

no noted adverse site conditions or external factors.

Realtor

4

27

1

0

8

2

23

23

4

4

2024

0

0

0

0

0

The development is under 

construction and the HOA fees are $400 per month. 

The development is currently under construction (subject's unit is complete) and the units are owned by the same entity, however all 

area on the market listed for sale.

The development is under construction (subject's unit is complete).

The green space and parking areas have not been completed at this time. The development owns 500 feet of sandy frontage on Lake 

Superior across the street.

SmartBrd-G

Membrane-G

54

2.00

Open

Page 3 of 30

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

I

N

F

O

R

M

A

T

I

O

N

P

R

O

J

E

C

T

A

N

A

L

Y

S

I

S

U

N

I

T

D

E

S

C

R

I

P

T

I

O

N

P

R

I

O

R

S

A

L

E

H

I

S

T

O

R

Y

File #

Describe the condition of the project and quality of construction.

Describe the common elements and recreational facilities.

Yes

No

Are any common elements leased to or by the Homeowners’ Association?

No If Yes, $

Is the project subject to ground rent?

Yes

per year (describe terms and conditions)

Yes

No

Are the parking facilities adequate for the project size and type?

did not analyze the condominium project budget for the current year. Explain the results of the analysis of the budget (adequacy of fees, reserves, etc.), or why

I

did

the analysis was not performed.

No

Are there any other fees (other than regular HOA charges) for the use of the project facilities?

Yes

Compared to other competitive projects of similar quality and design, the subject unit charge appears

High

Average

Low

Are there any special or unusual characteristics of the project (based on the condominium documents, HOA meetings, or other information) known to the appraiser?

Yes

No

Unit Charge $

per month X 12 = $

per year

Annual assessment charge per year per square feet of gross living area = $

Utilities included in the unit monthly assessment

None

Heat

Air Conditioning

Electricity

Gas

Water

Sewer

Cable

Other (describe)

Interior

Floor #

Floors

Fireplace(s) #

Refrigerator

None

# of Levels

Walls

Woodstove(s) #

Range/Oven

Garage

Covered

Open

Heating Type

Trim/Finish

Fuel

Deck/Patio

Disp

Microwave

# of Cars

Central AC

Individual AC

Porch/Balcony

Dishwasher

Assigned

Owned

Other (describe)

Doors

Other

Washer/Dryer

Parking Space #

Finished area above grade contains:

Square Feet of Gross Living Area Above Grade

Rooms

Bedrooms

Baths

Yes

No

Are the heating and cooling for the individual units separately metered?

Additional features (special energy efficient items, etc.)

Describe the condition of the property (including needed repairs, deterioration, renovations, remodeling, etc.).

Are there any physical deficiencies or adverse conditions that affect the livability, soundness, or structural integrity of the property?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Does the property generally conform to the neighborhood (functional utility, style, condition, use, construction, etc.)?

I

did

did not research the sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales. If not, explain

My research

did

did not reveal any prior sales or transfers of the subject property for the three years prior to the effective date of this appraisal.

Data source(s)

My research

did

did not reveal any prior sales or transfers of the comparable sales for the year prior to the date of sale of the comparable sale.

Data source(s)

Report the results of the research and analysis of the prior sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales (report additional prior sales on page 3).

Date of Prior Sale/Transfer

Price of Prior Sale/Transfer

Data Source(s)

Effective Date of Data Source(s)

Analysis of prior sale or transfer history of the subject property and comparable sales

Fannie Mae Form 1073 March 2005

Freddie Mac Form 465 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011

Page 2 of 6

Individual Condominium Unit Appraisal Report

If Yes, describe the rental terms and options.

If No, describe and comment on the effect on value and marketability.

If High or Low, describe

If Yes, describe and explain the effect on value and marketability.

If Yes, report the charges and describe.

General Description

Amenities

materials/condition

Appliances

Car Storage

If No, describe and comment on compatibility to other projects in the market area.

Bath Wainscot

If Yes, describe

If No, describe

ITEM

SUBJECT

COMPARABLE SALE #3

COMPARABLE SALE #2

COMPARABLE SALE #1

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

The condition of the project is considered to be in new condition. The units are 

considered to be of good to excellent quality.

The future common elements are green space and parking. The development owns 500 

feet of sandy frontage on Lake Superior. 

There is no such ground rent.

Each unit will have two outdoor spaces as well as a one car garage space. 

As per the owner the HOA fees $400 per month. This fee includes the plowing of the driveways and 

common roadways. No budget examination has been made.

No other fees are known to exist.

No such unusual characteristics are know to the appraiser 

however, I have not examined the master deed nor attended any of the HOA meetings.

400

4,800

3

1/2

Lam-G

1

4

Drywall-G

0

F/A

Ngas

Wood-G

Patio

3

Tile-G

Balcony

Wood Interior- G

None

0

5

2

2.1

1,510

Each unit has it's own furnace and central air conditioning.

The subject is a two bedroom condominium with a fireplace, patio, balcony and one car 

attached garage.

C2;No updates in the prior 15 years;The subject is 

of new construction. The subject is a good quality two bedroom condominium unit with attached one car garage.

No adverse structural or physical deficiencies noted. This appraisal and or inspection of the subject property should not be mistaken 

for a structural inspection. No structural inspections has been completed on the subject property by the appraiser. Such an inspection 

is considered to be beyond the scope of this report and HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. No physical deficiencies or adverse 

conditions or structural problems noted, please see "Scope of Work."

The subject is a mid rise building of new construction (subject unit is completed) and is considered to conform to the other

condominium properties in the Marquette area along the Lake shore. 

Please see below for subject's 

transfer history. I have researched the subject's MLS to not find any other sales or listings of the above used comparables in the past 

12-months. No known sales of the subject in the prior 3 years.

NCMLS, Public Records

NCMLS, Public Records

12/01/2025

$697900

NCMLS#50145764

NCMLS, Public Records

NCMLS, Public Records

NCMLS, Public Records

03/19/2026

03/19/2026

03/19/2026

03/19/2026

Per a search of the Upper Peninsula/North Central MLS service, 

and Marquette County tax records, it was confirmed that the entire parcel has sold on 05/12/2022 for $1,600,000 and the unit sold on 

12/01/2025 for $697,900. Regarding the comparable sales, there were no prior sales, or transfers, of the comparable sales utilized in 

this appraisal within one (1) year prior to the effective date of this appraisal.

Page 4 of 30

S

A

L

E

S

C

O

M

P

A

R

I

S

O

N

A

P

P

R

O

A

C

H

I

N

C

O

M

E

R

E

C

O

N

C

I

L

I

A

T

I

O

N

File #

There are

comparable properties currently offered for sale in the subject neighborhood ranging in price from $

to $

.

There are

comparable sales in the subject neighborhood within the past twelve months ranging in sale price from $

to $

.

Address and

Unit #

Project Name and

Phase

Proximity to Subject

Sale Price

$

$

$

$

Sale Price/Gross Liv. Area

$

$

$

$

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

Data Source(s)

Verification Source(s)

VALUE ADJUSTMENTS

Sale or Financing

Concessions

Date of Sale/Time

Location

Leasehold/Fee Simple

HOA Mo. Assessment

Common Elements

and Rec. Facilities

Floor Location

View

Design (Style)

Quality of Construction

Actual Age

Condition

Above Grade

Total

Room Count

Gross Living Area

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

Basement & Finished

Rooms Below Grade

Functional Utility

Heating/Cooling

Energy Efficient Items

Garage/Carport

Porch/Patio/Deck

Net Adjustment (Total)

+

-

+

-

+

-

$

$

$

Adjusted Sale Price

%

%

%

Net Adj.

Net Adj.

Net Adj.

%

%

%

Of Comparables

Gross Adj.

Gross Adj.

Gross Adj.

$

$

$

Summary of Sales Comparison Approach

Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach $

INCOME APPROACH TO VALUE (not required by Fannie Mae)

Estimated Monthly Market Rent $

X Gross Rent Multiplier

= $

Indicated Value by Income Approach

Summary of Income Approach (including support for market rent and GRM)

Indicated Value by: Sales Comparison Approach $

Income Approach (if developed) $

This appraisal is made

"as is",

subject to completion per plans and specifications on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the improvements have been

completed,

subject to the following repairs or alterations on the basis of a hypothetical condition that the repairs or alterations have been completed, or

subject to

the following required inspection based on the extraordinary assumption that the condition or deficiency does not require alteration or repair:

Based

on

a

complete

visual

inspection

of

the

interior

and

exterior

areas

of

the

subject

property,

defined

scope

of

work,

statement

of

assumptions

and

limiting

conditions,

and

appraiser’s

certification,

my

(our)

opinion

of

the

market

value,

as

defined,

of

the

real

property

that

is

the

subject

of

this

report

is

$

, as of

,

which

is

the

date

of

inspection

and

the

effective

date

of

this

appraisal.

Fannie Mae Form 1073 March 2005

Freddie Mac Form 465 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011

Page 3 of 6

Individual Condominium Unit Appraisal Report

COMPARABLE SALE # 1

COMPARABLE SALE # 2

COMPARABLE SALE # 3

SUBJECT

FEATURE

+(-) $ Adjustment

DESCRIPTION

+(-) $ Adjustment

DESCRIPTION

+(-) $ Adjustment

DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

Baths

Bdrms.

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

25

419,900

860,400

10

425,000

911,900

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd.

500 S Lakeshore Blvd

205 N Lakeshore Blvd.

518 S Lakeshore Blvd

2, Marquette, MI 49855

14, Marquette, MI 49855

2C, Marquette, MI 49855

4G, Marquette, MI 49855

North Harbor

Ganes and Adams Condominium

Flanigan Bros. Building

Ganes and Adams Condominium

1

4

1

4

2.21 miles S

1.99 miles S

2.31 miles S

729,900

699,000

694,900

508.29

344.33

476.29

NCMLS#50174321;DOM 10

NCMLS#50161962;DOM 49

NCMLS#50175011;DOM 0

K.Genshaw/Remax S/L Ratio 100%

B.Tonella/Remax S/L Ratio 100%

F.Sevegney/Remax S/L Ratio 101%

ArmLth

ArmLth

ArmLth

Cash;0

Cash;0

Cash;0

s07/25;c05/25

+29,200

s05/25;c01/25

+39,850

s05/25;c04/25

+29,900

B;WtrFr;

B;WtrFr;

B;WtrFr;

B;WtrFr;

Fee Simple

Fee Simple

Fee Simple

Fee Simple

400

295

0

764

0

295

0

Parking/Greenspace Similar

0

Similar

0

Similar

0

LkSuperiorFrntg

None

+18,200

None

+17,500

None

+17,400

1/2

1

0

3

0

1

0

B;Wtr;Res

B;Wtr;Res

B;Wtr;Res

B;Wtr;Res

MR4L;Midrise

MR4L;Midrise

MR3L;Midrise

0

MR4L;Midrise

Q2

Q2

-72,990

Q2

Q2

-69,490

2

8

0

22

0

10

0

C2

C2

C2

C2

+3,200

5

2

2.1

5

2

2.0

+4,000

7

4

2.1

0

5

2

2.0

+4,000

1,510

1,436

+7,030

2,030

-49,400

1,459

+4,845

0sf

0sf

0sf

0sf

Market Acceptable

Market Acceptable

Market Acceptable

Market Acceptable

NGF/A C/Air

NGF/A C/Air

NGH/W Wall A/C

0

NGF/A C/Air

None

None

None

None

1g2op

1g;Parking Garage

0

2op

+16,000

1g;Parking Garage

0

Balcony/Patio

Similar

0

Similar

0

Similar

0

Additional Features

Fireplace

None

+4,000

None

+4,000

None

+4,000

Additional Features

None

None

None

None

Additional Features

None

None

None

None

-10,560

27,950

-6,145

1.45

4.00

0.88

18.55

719,340

18.13

726,950

19.12

688,755

The search included the City of Marquette over the past 12 months for similar homes. Adjustments are 

made only for those items that a typical purchaser might consider in their buying decision and not for minor differences between the 

subject and each comparable, adjustments are made as warranted by the market with the support of matched pairs. The condition

adjustments are based on the sale price (less any concessions) depending on each comparable age and overall condition due to 

updates and maintenance (not on UAD rating). No adjustments are made for chronological age as this is taken into consideration in 

the condition adjustment. Although some of the comparable sales/listings may fall under an equal condition rating, often adjustments 

are necessary to reflect differences in levels of updates that are deemed superior/inferior but that do not necessarily warrant a higher/

lower rating. It appears that a purchaser will pay 2.5% more for the beach access verses just having a view of the Lake. I have 

adjusted the above comparables by 2.5% for this difference. This is the only condominium development that has frontage on Lake 

Superior.

712,000

0

0

0

712,000

The only approach to value considered applicable to this assignment is the Sales Comparison Approach.

712,000

03/19/2026

Page 5 of 30

S

U

B

J

E

C

T

L

I

S

T

I

N

G

S

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Address and

Unit #

Project Name and

Phase

Proximity to Subject

Original List Price

$

$

$

$

Current List Price

$

$

$

$

List Price Revision Date

List Price/Gross Liv. Area

$

$

$

$

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

Data Source(s)

Verification Source(s)

VALUE ADJUSTMENTS

Sale or Financing

Concessions

Days on Market

Location

Leasehold/Fee Simple

HOA Mo. Assessment

Common Elements

and Rec. Facilities

Floor Location

View

Design (Style)

Quality of Construction

Actual Age

Condition

Above Grade

Room Count

Gross Living Area

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

sq. ft.

Basement & Finished

Rooms Below Grade

Functional Utility

Heating/Cooling

Energy Efficient Items

Garage/Carport

Porch/Patio/Deck

Net Adjustment (Total)

+

-

+

-

+

-

$

$

$

Adjusted Sale Price

%

%

%

Net Adj.

Net Adj.

Net Adj.

%

%

%

Of Comparables

Gross Adj.

Gross Adj.

Gross Adj.

$

$

$

Date of Prior Sale/Transfer

Price of Prior Sale/Transfer

Data Source(s)

Effective Date of Data Source(s)

Summary of Comparables Listings

LISTING #

LISTING #

LISTING #

SUBJECT

FEATURE

+(-) $ Adjustment

DESCRIPTION

+(-) $ Adjustment

DESCRIPTION

+(-) $ Adjustment

DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

Baths

Bdrms.

Total

LISTING #

LISTING #

LISTING #

SUBJECT

ITEM

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd

Marquette, MI 49855

6, Marquette, MI 49855

23, Marquette, MI 49855

North Harbor

North Harbor

North Harbor

1

1

0.01 miles E

0.01 miles E

749,900

721,900

749,900

709,900

11/10/2025

402.74

415.15

NCMLS#50145756;DOM 644

NCMLS#50145766;DOM 249

F.Sevegney/Remax

F.Sevegney/Remax

Listing

Listing

None;0

None;0

644

249

B;WtrFr;

B;Wtr;

0

B;Wtr;

0

Fee Simple

Fee Simple

Fee Simple

400

350

0

350

0

Parking/Greenspace

Parking/Greenspace

Parking/Greenspace

LkSuperiorFrntg

LkSuperior Frntg

0

LkSuperiorFrntg

1/2

1/2

3/4

0

B;Wtr;Res

B;Wtr;Res

B;Wtr;Res

MR4L;Midrise

MR4L;Midrise

MR4L;Midrise

Q2

Q2

Q2

2

2

2

C2

C1

-7,500

C1

-7,200

5

2

2.1

6

3

2.1

0

5

2

2.1

1,510

1,862

-33,440

1,710

-19,000

0sf

0sf

0sf

Market Acceptable

Market Acceptable

Market Acceptable

NGF/A C/Air

NGF/A C/Air

NGF/A C/Air

None

None

None

1g2op

1g2op

1g2op

Balcony/Patio

Similar

0

Similar

0

Additional Features

Fireplace

None

+4,000

None

+4,000

Additional Features

None

None

None

Additional Features

None

None

None

-36,940

-22,200

4.93

3.13

5.99

712,960

4.25

687,700

12/01/2025

$697900

NCMLS#50145764

NCMLS, Public Records

NCMLS, Public Records

03/19/2026

03/19/2026

03/19/2026

Please see attached addendum for additional comments on sales, listings and adjustments.

1

2

3

1

2

3

Page 6 of 30

File #

This

report

form

is

designed

to

report

an

appraisal

of

a

unit

in

a

condominium

project

or

a

condominium

unit

in

a

planned

unit

development

(PUD).

This

report

form

is

not

designed

to

report

an

appraisal

of

a

manufactured

home

or

a

unit

in

a

cooperative

project.

This

appraisal

report

is

subject

to

the

following

scope

of

work,

intended

use,

intended

user,

definition

of

market

value,

statement

of

assumptions

and

limiting

conditions,

and

certifications.

Modifications,

additions,

or

deletions

to

the

intended

use,

intended

user,

definition

of

market

value,

or

assumptions

and

limiting

conditions

are

not

permitted.

The

appraiser

may

expand

the

scope

of

work

to

include

any

additional

research

or

analysis

necessary

based

on

the

complexity

of

this

appraisal

assignment.

Modifications

or

deletions

to

the

certifications

are

also

not

permitted.

However,

additional

certifications

that

do

not

constitute

material

alterations

to

this

appraisal

report,

such

as

those

required

by

law

or

those

related

to

the

appraiser's

continuing

education

or

membership

in

an

appraisal

organization,

are

permitted.

The

scope

of

work

for

this

appraisal

is

defined

by

the

complexity

of

this

appraisal

assignment

and

the

SCOPE OF WORK:

reporting

requirements

of

this

appraisal

report

form,

including

the

following

definition

of

market

value,

statement

of

assumptions

and

limiting

conditions,

and

certifications.

The

appraiser

must,

at

a

minimum:

(1)

perform

a

complete

visual

inspection

of

the

interior

and

exterior

areas

of

the

subject

unit,

(2)

inspect

and

analyze

the

condominium

project,

(3)

inspect

the

neighborhood,

(4)

inspect

each

of

the

comparable

sales

from

at

least

the

street,

(5)

research,

verify,

and

analyze

data

from

reliable

public

and/or

private

sources,

and

(6)

report

his

or

her

analysis,

opinions,

and

conclusions

in

this

appraisal

report.

The

intended

use

of

this

appraisal

report

is

for

the

lender/client

to

evaluate

the

property

that

is

the

INTENDED USE:

subject

of

this

appraisal

for

a

mortgage

finance

transaction.

The

intended

user

of

this

appraisal

report

is

the

lender/client.

INTENDED USER:

The

most

probable

price

which

a

property

should

bring

in

a

competitive

and

open

market

under

all

MARKET VALUE:

conditions

requisite

to

a

fair

sale,

the

buyer

and

seller,

each

acting

prudently,

knowledgeably

and

assuming

the

price

is

not

affected

by

undue

stimulus.

Implicit

in

this

definition

is

the

consummation

of

a

sale

as

of

a

specified

date

and

the

passing

of

title

from

seller

to

buyer

under

conditions

whereby:

(1)

buyer

and

seller

are

typically

motivated;

(2)

both

parties

are

well

informed

or

well

advised,

and

each

acting

in

what

he

or

she

considers

his

or

her

own

best

interest;

(3)

a

reasonable

time

is

allowed

for

exposure

in

the

open

market;

(4)

payment

is

made

in

terms

of

cash

in

U.

S.

dollars

or

in

terms

of

financial

arrangements

comparable

thereto;

and

(5)

the

price

represents

the

normal

consideration

for

the

property

sold

unaffected

by

special

or

creative

financing

or

sales

concessions*

granted

by

anyone

associated

with

the

sale.

*Adjustments

to

the

comparables

must

be

made

for

special

or

creative

financing

or

sales

concessions.

No

adjustments

are

necessary

for

those

costs

which

are

normally

paid

by

sellers

as

a

result

of

tradition

or

law

in

a

market

area;

these

costs

are

readily

identifiable

since

the

seller

pays

these

costs

in

virtually

all

sales

transactions.

Special

or

creative

financing

adjustments

can

be

made

to

the

comparable

property

by

comparisons

to

financing

terms

offered

by

a

third

party

institutional

lender

that

is

not

already

involved

in

the

property

or

transaction.

Any

adjustment

should

not

be

calculated

on

a

mechanical

dollar

for

dollar

cost

of

the

financing

or

concession

but

the

dollar

amount

of

any

adjustment

should

approximate

the

market's

reaction

to

the

financing

or

concessions

based

on

the

appraiser's

judgment.

The

appraiser's

certification

in

this

report

is

STATEMENT OF ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS:

subject

to

the

following

assumptions

and

limiting

conditions:

1.

The

appraiser

will

not

be

responsible

for

matters

of

a

legal

nature

that

affect

either

the

property

being

appraised

or

the

title

to

it,

except

for

information

that

he

or

she

became

aware

of

during

the

research

involved

in

performing

this

appraisal.

The

appraiser

assumes

that

the

title

is

good

and

marketable

and

will

not

render

any

opinions

about

the

title.

2.

The

appraiser

has

provided

a

sketch

in

this

appraisal

report

to

show

the

approximate

dimensions

of

the

improvements.

The

sketch

is

included

only

to

assist

the

reader

in

visualizing

the

property

and

understanding

the

appraiser's

determination

of

its

size.

3.

The

appraiser

has

examined

the

available

flood

maps

that

are

provided

by

the

Federal

Emergency

Management

Agency

(or

other

data

sources)

and

has

noted

in

this

appraisal

report

whether

any

portion

of

the

subject

site

is

located

in

an

identified

Special

Flood

Hazard

Area.

Because

the

appraiser

is

not

a

surveyor,

he

or

she

makes

no

guarantees,

express

or

implied,

regarding

this

determination.

4.

The

appraiser

will

not

give

testimony

or

appear

in

court

because

he

or

she

made

an

appraisal

of

the

property

in

question,

unless

specific

arrangements

to

do

so

have

been

made

beforehand,

or

as

otherwise

required

by

law.

5.

The

appraiser

has

noted

in

this

appraisal

report

any

adverse

conditions

(such

as

needed

repairs,

deterioration,

the

presence

of

hazardous

wastes,

toxic

substances,

etc.)

observed

during

the

inspection

of

the

subject

property

or

that

he

or

she

became

aware

of

during

the

research

involved

in

performing

this

appraisal.

Unless

otherwise

stated

in

this

appraisal

report,

the

appraiser

has

no

knowledge

of

any

hidden

or

unapparent

physical

deficiencies

or

adverse

conditions

of

the

property

(such

as,

but

not

limited

to,

needed

repairs,

deterioration,

the

presence

of

hazardous

wastes,

toxic

substances,

adverse

environmental

conditions,

etc.)

that

would

make

the

property

less

valuable,

and

has

assumed

that

there

are

no

such

conditions

and

makes

no

guarantees

or

warranties,

express

or

implied.

The

appraiser

will

not

be

responsible

for

any

such

conditions

that

do

exist

or

for

any

engineering

or

testing

that

might

be

required

to

discover

whether

such

conditions

exist.

Because

the

appraiser

is

not

an

expert

in

the

field

of

environmental

hazards,

this

appraisal

report

must

not

be

considered

as

an

environmental

assessment

of

the

property.

6.

The

appraiser

has

based

his

or

her

appraisal

report

and

valuation

conclusion

for

an

appraisal

that

is

subject

to

satisfactory

completion,

repairs,

or

alterations

on

the

assumption

that

the

completion,

repairs,

or

alterations

of

the

subject

property

will

be

performed

in

a

professional

manner.

Fannie Mae Form 1073 March 2005

Freddie Mac Form 465 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011

Page 4 of 6

Individual Condominium Unit Appraisal Report

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Page 7 of 30

File #

APPRAISER’S CERTIFICATION:

The

Appraiser

certifies

and

agrees

that:

1.

I

have,

at

a

minimum,

developed

and

reported

this

appraisal

in

accordance

with

the

scope

of

work

requirements

stated

in

this

appraisal

report.

2.

I

performed

a

complete

visual

inspection

of

the

interior

and

exterior

areas

of

the

subject

property.

I

reported

the

condition

of

the

improvements

in

factual,

specific

terms.

I

identified

and

reported

the

physical

deficiencies

that

could

affect

the

livability,

soundness,

or

structural

integrity

of

the

property.

3.

I

performed

this

appraisal

in

accordance

with

the

requirements

of

the

Uniform

Standards

of

Professional

Appraisal

Practice

that

were

adopted

and

promulgated

by

the

Appraisal

Standards

Board

of

The

Appraisal

Foundation

and

that

were

in

place

at

the

time

this

appraisal

report

was

prepared.

4.

I

developed

my

opinion

of

the

market

value

of

the

real

property

that

is

the

subject

of

this

report

based

on

the

sales

comparison

approach

to

value.

I

have

adequate

comparable

market

data

to

develop

a

reliable

sales

comparison

approach

for

this

appraisal

assignment.

I

further

certify

that

I

considered

the

cost

and

income

approaches

to

value

but

did

not

develop

them,

unless

otherwise

indicated

in

this

report.

5.

I

researched,

verified,

analyzed,

and

reported

on

any

current

agreement

for

sale

for

the

subject

property,

any

offering

for

sale

of

the

subject

property

in

the

twelve

months

prior

to

the

effective

date

of

this

appraisal,

and

the

prior

sales

of

the

subject

property

for

a

minimum

of

three

years

prior

to

the

effective

date

of

this

appraisal,

unless

otherwise

indicated

in

this

report.

6.

I

researched,

verified,

analyzed,

and

reported

on

the

prior

sales

of

the

comparable

sales

for

a

minimum

of

one

year

prior

to

the

date

of

sale

of

the

comparable

sale,

unless

otherwise

indicated

in

this

report.

7.

I

selected

and

used

comparable

sales

that

are

locationally,

physically,

and

functionally

the

most

similar

to

the

subject

property.

8.

I

have

not

used

comparable

sales

that

were

the

result

of

combining

a

land

sale

with

the

contract

purchase

price

of

a

home

that

has

been

built

or

will

be

built

on

the

land.

9.

I

have

reported

adjustments

to

the

comparable

sales

that

reflect

the

market's

reaction

to

the

differences

between

the

subject

property

and

the

comparable

sales.

10.

I

verified,

from

a

disinterested

source,

all

information

in

this

report

that

was

provided

by

parties

who

have

a

financial

interest

in

the

sale

or

financing

of

the

subject

property.

11.

I

have

knowledge

and

experience

in

appraising

this

type

of

property

in

this

market

area.

12.

I

am

aware

of,

and

have

access

to,

the

necessary

and

appropriate

public

and

private

data

sources,

such

as

multiple

listing

services,

tax

assessment

records,

public

land

records

and

other

such

data

sources

for

the

area

in

which

the

property

is

located.

13.

I

obtained

the

information,

estimates,

and

opinions

furnished

by

other

parties

and

expressed

in

this

appraisal

report

from

reliable

sources

that

I

believe

to

be

true

and

correct.

14.

I

have

taken

into

consideration

the

factors

that

have

an

impact

on

value

with

respect

to

the

subject

neighborhood,

subject

property,

and

the

proximity

of

the

subject

property

to

adverse

influences

in

the

development

of

my

opinion

of

market

value.

I

have

noted

in

this

appraisal

report

any

adverse

conditions

(such

as,

but

not

limited

to,

needed

repairs,

deterioration,

the

presence

of

hazardous

wastes,

toxic

substances,

adverse

environmental

conditions,

etc.)

observed

during

the

inspection

of

the

subject

property

or

that

I

became

aware

of

during

the

research

involved

in

performing

this

appraisal.

I

have

considered

these

adverse

conditions

in

my

analysis

of

the

property

value,

and

have

reported

on

the

effect

of

the

conditions

on

the

value

and

marketability

of

the

subject

property.

15.

I

have

not

knowingly

withheld

any

significant

information

from

this

appraisal

report

and,

to

the

best

of

my

knowledge,

all

statements

and

information

in

this

appraisal

report

are

true

and

correct.

16.

I

stated

in

this

appraisal

report

my

own

personal,

unbiased,

and

professional

analysis,

opinions,

and

conclusions,

which

are

subject

only

to

the

assumptions

and

limiting

conditions

in

this

appraisal

report.

17.

I

have

no

present

or

prospective

interest

in

the

property

that

is

the

subject

of

this

report,

and

I

have

no

present

or

prospective

personal

interest

or

bias

with

respect

to

the

participants

in

the

transaction.

I

did

not

base,

either

partially

or

completely,

my

analysis

and/or

opinion

of

market

value

in

this

appraisal

report

on

the

race,

color,

religion,

sex,

age,

marital

status,

handicap,

familial

status,

or

national

origin

of

either

the

prospective

owners

or

occupants

of

the

subject

property

or

of

the

present

owners

or

occupants

of

the

properties

in

the

vicinity

of

the

subject

property

or

on

any

other

basis

prohibited

by

law.

18.

My

employment

and/or

compensation

for

performing

this

appraisal

or

any

future

or

anticipated

appraisals

was

not

conditioned

on

any

agreement

or

understanding,

written

or

otherwise,

that

I

would

report

(or

present

analysis

supporting)

a

predetermined

specific

value,

a

predetermined

minimum

value,

a

range

or

direction

in

value,

a

value

that

favors

the

cause

of

any

party,

or

the

attainment

of

a

specific

result

or

occurrence

of

a

specific

subsequent

event

(such

as

approval

of

a

pending

mortgage

loan

application).

19.

I

personally

prepared

all

conclusions

and

opinions

about

the

real

estate

that

were

set

forth

in

this

appraisal

report.

If

I

relied

on

significant

real

property

appraisal

assistance

from

any

individual

or

individuals

in

the

performance

of

this

appraisal

or

the

preparation

of

this

appraisal

report,

I

have

named

such

individual(s)

and

disclosed

the

specific

tasks

performed

in

this

appraisal

report.

I

certify

that

any

individual

so

named

is

qualified

to

perform

the

tasks.

I

have

not

authorized

anyone

to

make

a

change

to

any

item

in

this

appraisal

report;

therefore,

any

change

made

to

this

appraisal

is

unauthorized

and

I

will

take

no

responsibility

for

it.

20.

I

identified

the

lender/client

in

this

appraisal

report

who

is

the

individual,

organization,

or

agent

for

the

organization

that

ordered

and

will

receive

this

appraisal

report.

Fannie Mae Form 1073 March 2005

Freddie Mac Form 465 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011

Page 5 of 6

Individual Condominium Unit Appraisal Report

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Page 8 of 30

File #

21.

The

lender/client

may

disclose

or

distribute

this

appraisal

report

to:

the

borrower;

another

lender

at

the

request

of

the

borrower;

the

mortgagee

or

its

successors

and

assigns;

mortgage

insurers;

government

sponsored

enterprises;

other

secondary

market

participants;

data

collection

or

reporting

services;

professional

appraisal

organizations;

any

department,

agency,

or

instrumentality

of

the

United

States;

and

any

state,

the

District

of

Columbia,

or

other

jurisdictions;

without

having

to

obtain

the

appraiser's

or

supervisory

appraiser's

(if

applicable)

consent.

Such

consent

must

be

obtained

before

this

appraisal

report

may

be

disclosed

or

distributed

to

any

other

party

(including,

but

not

limited

to,

the

public

through

advertising,

public

relations,

news,

sales,

or

other

media).

22.

I

am

aware

that

any

disclosure

or

distribution

of

this

appraisal

report

by

me

or

the

lender/client

may

be

subject

to

certain

laws

and

regulations.

Further,

I

am

also

subject

to

the

provisions

of

the

Uniform

Standards

of

Professional

Appraisal

Practice

that

pertain

to

disclosure

or

distribution

by

me.

23.

The

borrower,

another

lender

at

the

request

of

the

borrower,

the

mortgagee

or

its

successors

and

assigns,

mortgage

insurers,

government

sponsored

enterprises,

and

other

secondary

market

participants

may

rely

on

this

appraisal

report

as

part

of

any

mortgage

finance

transaction

that

involves

any

one

or

more

of

these

parties.

24.

If

this

appraisal

report

was

transmitted

as

an

"electronic

record"

containing

my

"electronic

signature,"

as

those

terms

are

defined

in

applicable

federal

and/or

state

laws

(excluding

audio

and

video

recordings),

or

a

facsimile

transmission

of

this

appraisal

report

containing

a

copy

or

representation

of

my

signature,

the

appraisal

report

shall

be

as

effective,

enforceable

and

valid

as

if

a

paper

version

of

this

appraisal

report

were

delivered

containing

my

original

hand

written

signature.

25.

Any

intentional

or

negligent

misrepresentation(s)

contained

in

this

appraisal

report

may

result

in

civil

liability

and/or

criminal

penalties

including,

but

not

limited

to,

fine

or

imprisonment

or

both

under

the

provisions

of

Title

18,

United

States

Code,

Section

1001,

et

seq.,

or

similar

state

laws.

SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The

Supervisory

Appraiser

certifies

and

agrees

that:

1.

I

directly

supervised

the

appraiser

for

this

appraisal

assignment,

have

read

the

appraisal

report,

and

agree

with

the

appraiser's

analysis,

opinions,

statements,

conclusions,

and

the

appraiser's

certification.

2.

I

accept

full

responsibility

for

the

contents

of

this

appraisal

report

including,

but

not

limited

to,

the

appraiser's

analysis,

opinions,

statements,

conclusions,

and

the

appraiser's

certification.

3.

The

appraiser

identified

in

this

appraisal

report

is

either

a

sub-contractor

or

an

employee

of

the

supervisory

appraiser

(or

the

appraisal

firm),

is

qualified

to

perform

this

appraisal,

and

is

acceptable

to

perform

this

appraisal

under

the

applicable

state

law.

4.

This

appraisal

report

complies

with

the

Uniform

Standards

of

Professional

Appraisal

Practice

that

were

adopted

and

promulgated

by

the

Appraisal

Standards

Board

of

The

Appraisal

Foundation

and

that

were

in

place

at

the

time

this

appraisal

report

was

prepared.

5.

If

this

appraisal

report

was

transmitted

as

an

"electronic

record"

containing

my

"electronic

signature,"

as

those

terms

are

defined

in

applicable

federal

and/or

state

laws

(excluding

audio

and

video

recordings),

or

a

facsimile

transmission

of

this

appraisal

report

containing

a

copy

or

representation

of

my

signature,

the

appraisal

report

shall

be

as

effective,

enforceable

and

valid

as

if

a

paper

version

of

this

appraisal

report

were

delivered

containing

my

original

hand

written

signature.

APPRAISER

SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED)

Signature

Signature

Name

Name

Company Name

Company Name

Company Address

Company Address

Telephone Number

Telephone Number

Email Address

Email Address

Date of Signature and Report

Date of Signature

Effective Date of Appraisal

State Certification #

or State License #

State Certification #

State

or State License #

Expiration Date of Certification or License

or Other

State #

State

Expiration Date of Certification or License

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Did not inspect subject property

ADDRESS OF PROPERTY APPRAISED

Did inspect exterior of subject property from street

Date of Inspection

Did inspect interior and exterior of subject property

APPRAISED VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY $

Date of Inspection

LENDER/CLIENT

Name

COMPARABLE SALES

Company Name

Did not inspect exterior of comparable sales from street

Did inspect exterior of comparable sales from street

Company Address

Email Address

Date of Inspection

Fannie Mae Form 1073 March 2005

Freddie Mac Form 465 March 2005 UAD Version 9/2011

Page 6 of 6

Individual Condominium Unit Appraisal Report

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Michelle Y. Swanson

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

201 Rublein Street, Suite B

Marquette, MI 49855

(906) 228-3969

office@appraisalassociatesMQT.com

03/31/2026

03/19/2026

1204068513

MI

07/31/2026

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd.

2, Marquette, MI 49855

712,000

No AMC

Nicolet National Bank

111 N. Washington Street, Green Bay, WI 54301

Page 9 of 30

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Page 1

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT:

This appraisal has been ordered, received, processed, completed, and delivered in accordance with FNMA

guidelines, including the section relating to appraiser independence guidelines.

This appraisal report has been prepared for the use and benefit of the client: Nicolet National Bank for "FAIR MARKET"

value determination in "AS IS" condition as of the date of the inspection (appraisal) for a potential mortgage decision on

behalf of the borrower(s): Vincent Carl Nystrom.

The purpose of this appraisal report is to estimate the “Fair Market Value”, in "Fee Simple" right of ownership,

unencumbered by liens, in "AS IS" condition of the subject property as of the date of the inspection (effective date of the

report).

No additional intended users are identified, it may not be used or relied upon by any other party without written

consent of Appraisal Associates.

SCOPE OF THE REPORT:

As part of the Scope of Work, the appraisal was developed by gathering information on the subject from the public records

(BSA), and the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). This includes the legal description, owner of record and sales of the subject

within the past three years and current or past listings within the past 12 months of the date of this appraisal. This

appraisal report sets forth only a summary of the comparable sales and their comparability to the subject and the

appraiser’s conclusion. Supporting documentation is retained in the appraiser’s work file or located in the appraiser’s office.

Testimony in Court or Other Proceedings. Unless otherwise stated, Client agrees that Appraiser’s engagement does not

include Appraiser’s participation in or preparation for, whether voluntarily or pursuant to subpoena, any oral or written

discovery; sworn testimony in a judicial, arbitration or administrative proceeding; or attendance at any judicial, arbitration or

administrative proceeding relating to this assignment.

The appraiser made an interior and exterior observation of all readily accessible areas of the subject property

improvements on 03/19/2026. The appraiser made an interior and exterior inspection of all readily accessible areas of the

subject property improvements. Appraiser has noted all readily observable conditions of the subject property, that is,

conditions that are immediately noticeable and discernible during a typical site visit. Appraiser is not responsible for

determining the functionality of appliances or mechanical systems.

The appraiser has considered the income approach in this assignment. The subject is a mid rise style condominium unit,

and there is insufficient rental data for similar homes in this market area to produce a reliable estimate of market rent for

the subject, and a GRM. Because it could not be reliably developed, the income approach has been omitted in this

appraisal.

In the Sales Comparison Approach, closed sales were utilized in comparison to the subject property. This would include

sales outside of the subject neighborhood if deemed necessary. Adjustments were made for any significant differences

between the comparables and subject. Information on the comparable sales was based on a cross section of the public

records, (BSA) and the North Central Multiple Listing Service (NCMLS), an exterior observation from the street and if

possible, verification with the listing agent or other parties to the sale. The gross living area for the subject was based on

measurements by the appraiser and the gross living area for the comparables was obtained from the data sheet as listed

on the NCMLS.

No value was assigned by the appraiser to any personal property located within the subject property. The approaches to

value developed in this report are for real property only.

GENERAL / EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS:

All mechanical components are assumed to be 100% operational. I am also assuming the roof is adequately vented, the

walls are at least typically insulated and the structure is free of any structural problems (none noted or reported). This

appraisal and/or inspection should not be mistaken for a structural inspection. No structural inspection has been

completed and is considered to be beyond the scope of this report. I am assuming there are no potential deficiencies

with the structure including possible or past problems associated with the structure including settlement problems, roof,

plumbing, heating and electrical and underground fuel oil storage tanks; no deficiencies or tanks were noted or reported.

The use of this extraordinary assumption might have affected the assignment results.

The appraiser is not a home, structural or code inspector, and this appraisal report is not a home, structural or

code inspection; the appraiser only performed a visual observation of accessible areas and the appraisal report

cannot be relied upon to disclose conditions and/or defects in the property.

ANSI STANDARD OF MEASUREMENT:

The attached sketch is for illustration purposes only. The subject property was measured according to the ANSI® Standard

which is the leading universally recognized "standard" for calculating residential square footage. It is recognized by HUD,

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, VA, FHA and approved for use in all mortgage lending transactions.

This method is NOT used in public records (Assessors are not required to enter dwellings) which must estimate upper and

lower levels and finished areas. The exterior only measurement method often provides wide variations in square footage

totals. The square footage details in public records (and online valuations) are frequently in error and cause over and under

valuations, based on a price per square foot formula calculated by using inaccurate square footage details.

Page 10 of 30

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Page 2

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

The finished square footage calculations contained herein were made based on a physical observation of the subject

property. Finished square footage is reported as above and below "grade". The subject's total square footage is listed as

Gross Living Area of "GLA" and is reported as the above grade square footage total only as required by the federally

mandated appraisal URAR form (this also includes room counts which must be separated between above and below

grade). This reporting method was created to allow for the fair comparison of similar properties. The ANSI® Standard

makes a clear delineation between above-grade square footage and below-grade square footage and no statement of a

house's square footage can be made without a clear and separate distinction. This reporting method does not impact a

home's value and is a method of comparison only.

The measurements were taken from the developer's specs/plans.

ADJUSTMENTS AND COMMENTS MADE ON THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH:

It is occasionally difficult to obtain comparable sales that meet all secondary mortgage market guidelines, more particularly

the following: Comparables located within one mile of the subject; Comparables sold within the last six months; and

Gross/Net Adjustments to comparables within the prescribed limits. Contributing factors to such difficulty are: The large

geographic area covered by Marquette County; a disproportionately small population with respect to the land area mass;

and the relative stability and seasonal nature of this real estate market. All attempts are made to use the best data

available to assist in estimating the value of the property being appraised.

In the subject's relatively rural market in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, there are often few sales of similar homes in any

given year. The Upper Peninsula is a large area with a low population density; it contains 30% of the land area of Michigan

but just 3% of its total population. This area does not have typical "tract housing or housing developments" where homes

tend to be similar in design, construction, and quality; thus, each property is unique, creating a greater need for

adjustments. The small number of sales in any given year require adjustments and differences that may not be typical in a

more urban market, and that exceed typical underwriting guidelines, none of which imply an effect on marketability or

value.

Data published by the National Association of Realtors indicates that residential sales in 2023 and 2024 were the lowest

they have been in the previous 30-years. This reduction in the number of total settled sales also reduces the number of

comparable sales in any given year. Therefore, it is necessary in more rural markets to expand the search

area/neighborhood in order to bracket features of a subject property. The best available comparable sales are selected by

expanding the market area, and overall time period. However, these expansions also can increase the net and gross

adjustment percentages.

Market conditions/time adjustments in this appraisal are supported by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s House

Price Index (FHFA HPI®) data for the subject’s geographic region (East North Central). The table and graph of this market

data is included in this report. The Monthly Price Changes found in the HPI have been verified by the appraiser; these

regional monthly time changes are deemed accurate and applicable to the subject property’s market area. Note: the

market area is modestly increasing, though not at a rate that the appraiser deems significant; the market is therefore

deemed “stable” despite this moderate increase. A larger, more significant annual increase of 10% or higher would indicate

an increasing market. It should be noted that there is unreported data for the prior 2 month period due to the slight delay in

FHFA’s reporting. Until this new data is published, a monthly adjustment of 0.52% is utilized in this report for the months of

January and February.

The subject property is located within the city boundaries of Marquette (pop. 21,079). The subject's market area includes

residential areas situated within a one (1.0) mile radius of the subject property. Marquette, Michigan, with its regional

hospital and Northern Michigan University, is the main employment and service center for the area. All of these properties

are within a five minute drive to downtown Marquette, which is the major economic hub of the Central Upper Peninsula

region. As such, the residents of the subject's area share the same services and shopping amenities.

The subject's market area includes residential homes from an entry level value range from $400,000 to higher quality

properties in the range of $900,000 and above. Properties above $700,000 are typically properties with lake frontage,

properties with large GLA square footage and/or finished basements, or those with higher-end (Q2+) features & finishes.

Market activity in the area is considered good, and recent marketing periods and exposure time in the area is currently

from 0-3 months. Maintained (C4-C2) properties, which are adequately priced, typically experience lower marketing

periods.

Adjustments are based on a combination of paired sale analysis, extraction, and conversations with local agents about

buyer reaction to specific features. This data provides support for a range of market adjustments. Ultimately the

adjustment was made based on the range indicated by market data, and appraiser experience and knowledge in

appraising in this area, which is paramount in the adjustment process.

Actual paired data and extraction is generally not completed for every assignment. This office completes 100's of appraisal

reports a year and is privy to a significant amount of data, as such, when found, paired data to support adjustments is

located and filed for future reference and serves as a basis for many assignments. However, if paired sale analysis or

extraction is completed for a specific appraisal report the sales will be identified and a discussion of the specifics will be

given in the report. In summary, the processes utilized to make adjustments are explained below and meet the

requirements of USPAP as well as the GSE's.

Most property in this area sells via conventional bank financing with no special buydowns, but with some seller's

concessions. there are also Land Contracts, FHA/VA Financing

The overall quality of the subject improvements is average, as are the room sizes, layout, closet space and general

adequacy. NO apparent physical or functional weaknesses were noted or reported.

The location of the subject and comparables reflected on the location map should be considered approximate due to

Page 11 of 30

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Page 3

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

limitations in the mapping software program. Highlighted roads on the map do NOT indicate market barriers, sales included

are felt to have equal marketability.

Varying home styles as well as number of bedrooms is typical in this market and price range. It should be noted that

variances in sales and listing activity occur in this area due in part to the seasonal nature of the local real estate market

having less activity in the winter months (Oct.-April).

Site adjustments are made with consideration to size AND location not one factor alone. Factors including location, water

features and size are all considered.

Quality adjustments are not based on the UAD rating solely. Construction elements are also considered 2x4 vs 2x6

construction, brick or stone exterior vs, vinyl or aluminum siding, typical ceiling height vs. above average, stock materials

vs. upgrades, vinyl and carpet flooring vs. tile and hardwood. Some of these elements may receive an overall equal quality

rating but are deemed superior/inferior in our local market and warrant adjustment.

The condition adjustments are based on the sale price (less any concessions) depending on each comparable age and

overall condition due to updates and maintenance (not on UAD rating). No adjustments are made for chronological age as

this is taken into consideration in the condition adjustment. Although some of the comparable sales/listings may fall under

an equal condition rating, often adjustments are necessary to reflect differences in levels of updates that are deemed

superior/inferior but that do not necessarily warrant a higher/lower rating.

Analysis of the square footage indicates that the difference in GLA ranges from 20% to 40% of the comparables'

price/finished living area, depending on the land-to-value ratio. The median price/gross living area of the closed

comparable sales is $476 per square foot. A factor of 20% is most applicable for finished square footage differences of

similar properties within the subject’s market, which was refined through a sensitivity analysis of the comparable sales

utilized in this report. This equates to an adjustment of $95 per square foot of total GLA.

The reader should be aware that every attempt is made to accurately measure the subject property and denote room

locations. Due to the difficulty of measuring the upper levels of homes or uniquely angled homes where interior

measurements may need to be used, the overall size and room locations should be considered an estimate.

UAD restricts garage description to a numeric entry however, adjustments are not based on UAD entries. Applied

adjustments consider the value of the individual item (various types and sizes of garage/outbuildings). Some garages are

standard in size while others are slightly larger/smaller, some are older and have less contributory value than a brand

newer garage. Some are heated or have additional workshops, loft storage or other features which warrant adjustment.

Net/Gross adjustments are higher than ideal due to differences primarily in GLA and/or basement finish. Considering the

lack of more similar recent sales this was unavoidable. The subject is NOT felt to be over improved.

An exterior inspection from the street was completed by the appraiser on each of the comparables. In addition, the

comparables may have been appraised by Appraisal Associates of Marquette. Photos are taken either in conjunction with

the actual appraisal of these sales or as close to their respective sales dates as possible which is why some photos may

be out of season. NCMLS Photos are used when there are obstructions or people present at the time of the drive by.

Comparables One and Two have considered higher quality bathrooms and kitchens; considered under the condition

adjustment.

The adjusted closed comparable sales were analyzed, and greater weight was given to the comparable sales that the

appraiser deemed represented the subject more closely. The indicated value by the Sales Comparison Approach,

$712,000, is calculated using the following weights:

Before adjustments were made in the sales comparison adjustment grid, the difference between the Highest Sale Price

and the Lowest Sale Price of the comparable sales was initially 4.802%. After adjustments were made to account for

significant differences between the subject and each comparable sale, the difference between the Highest Adjusted Value

and the Lowest Adjusted Value was increased to 5.25%. By analyzing the difference percentage of both ranges, the

Page 12 of 30

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Page 4

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

appraiser was able to assess the reasonableness of the comparable sales initially selected, as well as the reasonableness

and accuracy of the development of the adjustments made within the sales comparison adjustment grid. This sensitivity

analysis was utilized when developing the final reconciliation of value.

Conclusion: As a result of the analysis of the comparable sales utilized, the indicated value of $712,000 is considered fair

market value for the subject property.

HIGHEST AND BEST USE:

Highest and best use is defined by "Real Estate Appraisal Terminology" as follows:

"That reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value, as defined, as of the effective date of the

appraisal. Alternatively, that use, from among reasonably probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically

possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and which results in highest land value. The definition immediately

above applies specifically to the highest and best use of land. It is to be recognized that in cases where a site has existing

improvements on it, the highest and best use may very well be determined to be different from the existing use. The

existing use will continue, however, unless and until land value in its highest and best use exceeds the total value of the

property in its existing use."

The subject property being appraised represents the highest and best use of the site, maximizing its potential and value.

This is based on a comprehensive analysis of the site's unique attributes, including its location, zoning, accessibility, and

market demand. The property's current use aligns with these factors, offering a financially feasible, legally permissible, and

physically possible solution. Consequently, it not only meets but also optimally leverages the site's inherent advantages,

making it the most profitable and suitable use of the land.

In the appraiser's opinion, the highest and best use of the subject property is its current use as a single family residential

property. This is based on demand, zoning, surrounding neighborhood and the fact that the land, as though vacant is less

than that which includes the existing improvements.

Legal Description

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

SUBJECT'S "REASONABLE EXPOSURE TIME" ESTIMATED:

For purposes of this report, USPAP's definition of "Reasonable Exposure Time" is defined as follows:

“The estimated length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the

hypothetical consummation of a sale at market value on the effective date of the appraisal; a retrospective opinion based

on an analysis of past events assuming a competitive and open market.” *

Considering the subject property, location and market factors including information from local market participants as well as

information gained from other similar and competing properties in the local market; I feel a "Reasonable Exposure Time"

for the subject at the estimated appraised value would be within 1 month (considering typically used professional Realtor

services and definition of "Fair Market Value" included on page 4 of the appropriate form).

* Definition taken from 2024's version of USPAP

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:

Page 13 of 30

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Page 5

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

(A) Unknown Potential Environmental Hazards:

It is unknown if the subject structure or site is affected by, not limited to, any of the following: Dangerous Levels of Toxic

Molds (it is unknown if hazardous molds or high levels of molds exist in the structure, no tests completed), Dangerous

levels of Radon Gas (no tests completed nor is the area known for high levels of radon gas), UREA Formaldehyde

Foam Insulation (no tests were completed, none is known to exist), (not limited to) lead pipes and solder (none were

noted), Underground Storage Tanks (none were noted at the time of the inspection none are known to exist), Nearby

Hazardous Waste Sites (none are known to the appraiser), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) (none are known to the

appraiser) or Soil and Water Contaminants (none are known to exist nor are any tests known to exist). The appraiser is

not responsible for testing the home/property for potential environmental hazards.

*The appraiser is NOT an expert environmental inspector.

If all or any of these (or other) possible contaminants are a concern to the client or potential purchaser (present or

future) of the property or mortgage, a professional should be contacted to conduct appropriate tests to determine

any such existence of such materials and contaminants.

DIGITAL PHOTOS AND SIGNATURE:

A. The signatures on this appraisal are digital signatures, which are computer generated and printed on the report. The

appraisal may have been electronically transmitted from our office. The appraiser's signature is secured by a password

which only the appraiser has access to. If any modifications were made on this appraisal, the signature would be

eliminated.

B. This form of Certification has been approved by The Appraisal Foundation, located at 1029 Vermont Ave, N.W., Ste.

900, Washington, D.C., 20005-3517. The Appraisal Foundation is authorized by Congress as the Source of Appraisal

Standards and Appraiser Qualifications. This approval can be found in the Statement on Appraisal Standards No. 8 (SMT-

8) on Electronic Transmission of Reports. The section regarding signed certification reads as follows:

Any software program used to electronically transfer a report must provide, at minimum, a digital signature security feature

for all appraisers signing a report. The appraiser(s) should ensure the signature(s) are protected and that only the

appraiser(s) maintain control of the signature. This control may be maintained by password (e.g. PIN numbers), hardware

devices (e.g. secure cards) or other means. Electronically affixing a signature to a report carries the same level of

authenticity and responsibility as an ink signature on a paper copy report.

Appraisal Standards Board, Adopted 7/18/95, Effective 1/1/96

C. This should address any and/or all questions and concerns you have regarding digitally transmitted signatures. If you

have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (906) 228-3969.

REVISED APPRAISAL REPORT:

This appraisal is a revision to the appraisal report delivered to the client on 03/31/2026. It was revised, at the request of the

client, to address the following:

No other changes were made to this revised appraisal, nor was there any change to the original opinion of value.

Pleas correct the tax parcel number to match the

tax bill: 1510891 updated

Hello, Please add the HOA fees to the top

of page 1 Corrected

Page 14 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

FARM LIST - SALES AND LISTINGS CONSIDERED

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 15 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

MARKET CONDITIONS/TIME ADJUSTMENT EXPLANATION

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 16 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM

FRONT VIEW OF

SUBJECT PROPERTY

REAR VIEW OF

SUBJECT PROPERTY

STREET SCENE OF

SUBJECT PROPERTY

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 17 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDITIONAL SUBJECT PHOTOS ADDENDUM

View of Lake Superior

Garage Interior

Mechanical

Bathroom pic 1 of 2

Bathroom pic 2 of 2

Bedroom

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 18 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDITIONAL SUBJECT PHOTOS ADDENDUM

Bathroom

Bedroom

Laundry

Kitchen pic 1 of 2

Kitchen pic 2 of 2

1/2 Bathroom

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 19 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDITIONAL SUBJECT PHOTOS ADDENDUM

Living Room

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 20 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

SKETCH ADDENDUM

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 21 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

AERIAL VIEW

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 22 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM

COMPARABLE #1

500 S Lakeshore Blvd

14, Marquette, MI 49855

Price

$729,900

Price/SF

$508.29

Date

s07/25;c05/25

Age

8

Room Count

5-2-2.0

Living Area

1,436

Value Indication

$719,340

COMPARABLE #2

205 N Lakeshore Blvd.

2C, Marquette, MI 49855

Price

$699,000

Price/SF

$344.33

Date

s05/25;c01/25

Age

22

Room Count

7-4-2.1

Living Area

2,030

Value Indication

$726,950

COMPARABLE #3

518 S Lakeshore Blvd

4G, Marquette, MI 49855

Price

$694,900

Price/SF

$476.29

Date

s05/25;c04/25

Age

10

Room Count

5-2-2.0

Living Area

1,459

Value Indication

$688,755

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 23 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

COMPARABLE LISTINGS PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM

LISTING #1

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd

6, Marquette, MI 49855

Price

$749,900

Price/SF

$402.74

DOM

644

Age

2

Room Count

6-3-2.1

Living Area

1,862

Indicated Value

$712,960

LISTING #2

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd

23, Marquette, MI 49855

Price

$709,900

Price/SF

$415.15

DOM

249

Age

2

Room Count

5-2-2.1

Living Area

1,710

Indicated Value

$687,700

LISTING #3

Price

Price/SF

DOM

Age

Room Count

Living Area

Indicated Value

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 24 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

LOCATION MAP

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 25 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Client

261150A

FLOOD MAP

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

Page 26 of 30

Fannie Mae - Definition of Terms

File No.

Case No.

Borrower

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Lender/Client

Address

Requirements - Condition and Quality Ratings Usage

Appraisers must utilize the following standardized conditions and quality ratings within the appraisal report.

Condition Ratings and Definitions

- The improvements have been very recently constructed and have not previously been occupied. The entire structure and all components are new and the dwelling features

C1

no physical depreciation.

*Note: Newly constructed improvements that feature recycled materials and/or components can be considered new dwellings provided that the dwelling is placed on a 100%

new foundation and recycled materials and the recycled components have been rehabilitated/re-manufactured into like-new condition. Recently constructed improvements

that have not been previously occupied are not considered "new" if they have significant physical depreciation (i.e., newly constructed dwellings that have been vacant for an

extended period of time without adequate maintenance or upkeep).

C2 - The improvements feature no deferred maintenance, little or no physical depreciation, and require no repairs. Virtually all building components are new or have been recently

repaired, refinished, or rehabilitated. All outdated components and finished have been updated and/or replaced with components that meet current standards. Dwellings in this

category either are almost new or have been recently completely renovated and are similar in condition to new construction.

*Note: The improvements represent a relatively new property that is well maintained with no deferred maintenance and little or no physical depreciation, or an older property

that has been recently completely renovated.

C3 - The improvements are well maintained and feature limited physical depreciation due to normal wear and tear. some components, but not every major building component,

may be updated or recently rehabilitated. The structure has been well maintained.

*Note: The improvement is in its first-cycle of replacing short-lived building components (appliances, floor coverings, HVAC, etc.) and is being well maintained. Its estimated effective age

is less than its actual age. It also may reflect a property in which the majority of short-lived building components have been replaced but not to the level of a complete renovation.

C4 - The improvements feature some minor deferred maintenance and physical deterioration due to normal wear and tear. The dwelling has been adequately maintained and

requires only minimal repairs to building components/mechanical systems and cosmetic repairs. All major building components have been adequately maintained and are

functionally adequate.

*Note: The estimated effective age may be close to or equal to its actual age. It reflects a property in which some of the short-lived building components have been

replaced, and some short-lived building components are at or near the end of their physical life expectancy; however, they still function adequately. Most minor repairs

have been addressed on an ongoing basis resulting in an adequately maintained property

C5 - The improvements feature obvious deferred maintenance and are in need of some significant repairs. Some building components need repairs, rehabilitation, or updating.

The functional utility and overall livability is somewhat diminished due to condition, but the dwelling remains useable and functional as a residence.

*Note: Some significant repairs are needed to the improvements due to the lack of adequate maintenance. It reflects a property in which many of its short-lived

building components are at the end of or have exceeded their physical life expectancy but remain functional.

C6 - The improvements have substantial damage or deferred maintenance with deficiencies or defects that are severe enough to affect the safety, soundness, or structural integrity

of the improvements. The improvements are in need of substantial repairs and rehabilitation, including many or most major components.

*Note: Substantial repairs are needed to the improvements due to the lack of adequate maintenance or property damage. It reflects a property with conditions severe enough to

affect the safety, soundness, or structural integrity of the improvements.

Quality Ratings and Definitions

Q1 - Dwellings with this quality rating are usually unique structures that are individually designed by an architect for a specified use. Such residences typically are constructed

from detailed architectural plans and specifications and feature an exceptionally high level of workmanship and exceptionally high-grade materials throughout the interior and

exterior of the structure. The design features exceptionally high-quality exterior refinements and ornamentation, and exceptionally high-quality interior refinements. The

workmanship, materials, and finishes throughout the dwelling are exceptionally high quality.

Q2 - Dwellings with this quality rating are often custom designed for construction on an individual property owner's site. However, dwellings in this quality grade are also found

in high-quality tract developments featuring residences constructed from individual plans or from highly modified or upgraded plans. The design features detailed high-quality

exterior ornamentation, high-quality interior refinements, and detail. The workmanship, materials, and finishes throughout the dwelling are of exceptionally high quality.

Q3 - Dwellings with this quality rating are residences of higher quality built from individual or readily available designer plans in above-standard residential tract developments

or on an individual property owner's site. The design includes significant exterior ornamentation and interiors that are well finished. The workmanship exceeds acceptable

standards and many materials and finishes throughout the dwelling have been upgraded from "stock" standards.

Q4 - Dwellings with this quality rating meet or exceed the requirements of applicable building codes. Standard or modified standard building plans are utilized and the design includes

adequate fenestration and some exterior ornamentation and interior refinements. Materials, workmanship, finish, and equipment are of stock or builder grade and may feature

some upgrades.

Q5 - Dwellings with this quality rating feature economy of construction and basic functionality as main considerations. Such dwellings feature a plain design using readily available

or basic floor plans featuring minimal fenestration and basic finishes with minimal exterior ornamentation and limited interior detail. These dwellings meet minimum building codes

and are constructed with inexpensive, stock materials with limited refinements and upgrades.

Q6 - Dwellings with this quality rating are of basic quality and lower cost; some may not be suitable for year-round occupancy. Such dwellings are often built with simple plans or

without plans, often utilizing the lowest quality building materials. Such dwellings are often built or expanded by persons who are professionally unskilled or possess only minimal

construction skills. Electrical, plumbing, and other mechanical systems and equipment may be minimal or non-existent. Older dwellings may feature one or more substandard

non-conforming additions to the original structure.

Definitions of Not Updated, Updated, and Remodeled

Not Updated

- Little or no updating or modernization. This description includes, but is not limited to, new homes. Residential properties of fifteen years of age or less often

reflect an original condition with no updating, if no major components have been replaced or updated. Those over fifteen years of age are also considered not updated if the

appliances, fixtures, and finishes are predominantly dated. An area that is 'Not Updated' may still be well maintained and fully functional, and this rating does not necessarily

imply deferred maintenance or physical/functional deterioration.

Updated

- The area of the home has been modified to meet current market expectations. These modifications are limited in terms of both scope and cost. An updated area of

the home should have an improved look and feel, or functional utility. Changes that constitute updates include refurbishment and/or replacing components to meet existing market

expectations. Updates do not include significant alterations to the existing structure.

Remodeled

- Significant finish and/or structural changes have been made that increase utility and appeal through complete replacement and/or expansion. A remodeled area reflects

fundamental changes that include multiple alterations. These alterations may include some or all of the following: replacement of a major component (cabinet(s), bathtub,

or bathroom tile), relocation of plumbing/gas fixtures/appliances, significant structural alterations (relocating walls and/or the addition of square footage). This would include

a complete gutting and rebuild.

Explanation of Bathroom Count

Three-quarter baths are counted as a full bath in all cases. Quarter baths (baths that feature only a toilet) are not included in the bathroom count. The number of full and half baths is

reported by separating the two values using a period, where the full bath count is represented to the left of the period and the half bath count is represented to

the right of the period.

Example: 3.2 indicates three full baths and two half baths.

UAD Definitions 9/2011 (Updated 1/2014)

Page 1 of 3

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

111 N. Washington Street, Green Bay, WI 54301

Page 27 of 30

File No.

Requirements - Abbreviations Used in

Data Standardization Text

Case No.

Abbreviation

Full Name

Appropriate Fields

A

Adverse

Location & View

ac

Acres

Area, Site

AdjPrk

Adjacent to Park

Location

AdjPwr

Adjacent to Power Lines

Location

ArmLth

Arms Length Sale

Sale or Financing Concessions

AT

Attached Structure

Design (Style)

B

Beneficial

Location & View

ba

Bathroom(s)

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

br

Bedroom

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

BsyRd

Busy Road

Location

c

Contracted Date

Date of Sale/Time

Cash

Cash

Sale or Financing Concessions

Comm

Commercial Influence

Location

Conv

Conventional

Sale or Financing Concessions

cp

Carport

Garage/Carport

CrtOrd

Court Ordered Sale

Sale or Financing Concession

CtySky

City View Skyline View

View

CtyStr

City Street View

View

cv

Covered

Garage/Carport

DOM

Days On Market

Data Sources

DT

Detached Structure

Design (style)

dw

Driveway

Garage/Carport

e

Expiration Date

Date of Sale/Time

Estate

Estate Sale

Sale or Financing Concessions

FHA

Federal Housing Administration

Sale or Financing Concessions

G

Garage

Garage/Carport

ga

Attached Garage

Garage/Carport

gbi

Built-in Garage

Garage/Carport

gd

Detached Garage

Garage/Carport

GlfCse

Golf Course

Location

Glfvw

Golf Course View

View

GR

Garden

Design (Style)

HR

High Rise

Design (Style)

in

Interior Only Stairs

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

Ind

Industrial

Location & View

Listing

Listing

Sale or Financing Concessions

Lndfl

Landfill

Location

LtdSght

Limited Sight

View

MR

Mid Rise

Design (Style)

Mtn

Mountain View

View

N

Neutral

Location & View

NonArm

Non-Arms Length Sale

Sale or Financing Concessions

o

Other

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

O

Other

Design (Style)

op

Open

Garage/Carport

Prk

Park View

View

Pstrl

Pastoral View

View

PubTm

Public Transportation

Location

PwrLn

Power Lines

View

Relo

Relocation Sale

Sale or Financing Concessions

REO

REO Sale

Sale or Financing Concessions

Res

Residential

Location & View

RH

USDA - Rural Housing

Sale or Financing Concessions

rr

Recreational (Rec) Room

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

s

Settlement Date

Date of Sale/Time

sf

Square Feet

Area, Site, Basement

Short

Short Sale

Sale or Financing Concessions

Unk

Unknown

Date of Sale/Time

VA

Veterans Administration

Sale or Financing Concessions

w

Withdraw Date

Date of Sale/Time

wo

Walk Out Basement

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

Woods

Woods View

View

Wtr

Water View

View

WtrFr

Water Frontage

Location

wu

Walk Up Basement

Basement & Finished Rooms Below Grade

UAD Definitions 9/2011 (Updated 1/2014)

Page 2 of 3

261150A

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Page 28 of 30

APPRAISAL AND REPORT IDENTIFICATION

ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATIONS

PRIOR SERVICES

PROPERTY INSPECTION

APPRAISAL ASSISTANCE

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

MARKETING TIME AND EXPOSURE TIME FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

APPRAISER

SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (ONLY IF REQUIRED)

File No.

USPAP Compliance Addendum

Borrower/Client

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

Lender/Client

This Appraisal Report is one of the following types:

Appraisal Report

This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Appraisal Report option of USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(a).

Restricted Appraisal Report

This report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Restricted Appraisal Report option of USPAP Standards Rule 2-2(b). The

intended user of this report is limited to the identified client. This is a Restricted Appraisal Report and the rationale for how the appraiser arrived

at the opinions and conclusions set forth in the report may not be understood properly without the additional information in the appraiser's workfile.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

· The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

The report analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and are my personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses,

·

opinions,

and

conclusions.

· I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report and no (or specified) personal interest with respect to the

parties

involved.

· I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or the parties involved with this assignment.

My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

·

· My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause

of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of

this

appraisal.

· My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

· This appraisal report was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Title XI of FIRREA and any implementing regulations.

I have NOT performed services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of the report within the three-year period

immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.

I HAVE performed services, as an appraiser or in another capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately

preceding acceptance of this assignment. Those services are described in the comments below.

I have NOT made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

I HAVE made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

Unless otherwise noted, no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. If anyone did provide significant assistance, they

are hereby identified along with a summary of the extent of the assistance provided in the report.

Additional

USPAP

related

issues

requiring

disclosure

and/or

any

state

mandated

requirements:

A reasonable marketing time for the subject property is

day(s) utilizing market conditions pertinent to the appraisal assignment.

A reasonable exposure time for the subject property is

day(s).

Signature

Signature

Name

Name

Date of Signature

Date of Signature

State Certification #

State Certification #

or State License #

or State License #

State

State

Expiration Date of Certification or License

Expiration Date of Certification or License

Supervisory Appraiser Inspection of Subject Property:

Effective Date of Appraisal

Did Not

Exterior-only from Street

Interior and Exterior

USPAP Compliance Addendum 2014

Page 1 of 1

261150A

03/19/2026

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Nicolet National Bank

"Appraisers are required to be licensed and are regulated 

by the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, P.O. Box 30018, Lansing, Michigan 48909."

30

30

Michelle Y. Swanson

03/31/2026

1204068513

MI

07/31/2026

Page 29 of 30

File No.

Property Address

City

County

State

Zip Code

261150A

APPRAISER QUALIFICATIONS & COPY OF APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION

Appraisal Associates of Marquette

Borrower/Owner

Vincent Carl Nystrom

2401 N Lakeshore Blvd., #2

Marquette

Marquette

MI

49855

Lender/Client

Nicolet National Bank

MICHELLE Y. SWANSON

CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER

License #1204068513

Expiration Date: 07/31/2026

Education:

Northern Michigan University, Marquette, MI 49855

Extensive in-house training program at Appraisal Associates, As well as all State required

education covering valuation techniques of residential, land and other types of property.

Licenses held:

Certified Residential Appraiser, ID# 1204068513

State Licensed Appraiser, ID# 1201068513

Limited Appraiser, ID# 1201068513

Affiliation:

Member of the Michigan Association of REALTORS.

Member of the Upper Peninsula Association of REALTORS.

Member of the North Central Upper Peninsula Multiple Listing Service.

Member of the Marquette Chamber of Commerce.

Experience:

2019-Present Certified Residential Appraiser

2004 - 2019 State Licensed Appraiser

2001 - 2004 Limited Appraiser

1997 - 2001 Office Assistant, Appraisal Associates

Work assignments include the appraisal of the following types of property: seasonal and year round

cottages/camps, single family residential, multiple family residential (2-4 family), new construction,

vacant land, and REO assignments. These assignments have been prepared for financial institutions,

tax appeal, relocation companies, attorneys, insurance companies, and individuals.

Clients of Appraisal Associates

Local banks, National lenders, Relocation Companies

Mortgage Brokers, HUD/FHA, VA and USDA, Attorneys and Private Individuals.

"Appraisers are required to be licensed and are regulated by the Michigan Department of Licensing

and Regulatory Affairs, P.O. Box 30018, Lansing, Michigan 48909."

Page 30 of 30

Exhibit E

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CHIP PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Docket No. 26+ 

Petitioner, 

V. 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

Respondent. 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Williams Williams Rattner 

& Plunkett, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Affidavit of 

John Foster 

John Foster, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 

1. 

I have personal knowledge 

of and am competent 

to testify 

to the 

matters stated in this Affidavit. 

2. 

Chip 

Properties, 

LLC 

(“Chip 

Properties”), 

is 

a Michigan 

limited 

liability company that was organized during 2020. 

3. 

Chip Properties is the owner of the following real property located in 

the City 

of Marquette: 

(a) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A5, tax parcel number 

1510895; (b) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A6, tax parcel number 1510896; (c) 2401 

Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A7, tax parcel number 1510897; (d) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. 

Unit AS8, tax parcel number 1510898; (e) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A9, tax parcel 

Page 1 of 4

number 15100899; (f) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A10, tax parcel number 1510900; 

(g) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit All, tax parcel number 1510901; (h) 2401 Lakeshore 

Blvd. Unit A12, tax parcel number 1510902; (i) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A183, tax 

parcel number 1510903; () 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit Al4, tax parcel number 

1510904; (k) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A15, tax parcel number 1510905; (J) 2401 

Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A16, tax parcel number 1510906; (m) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. 

Unit A17, tax parcel number 1510907; 

(n) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A18, tax 

parcel number 1510908; 

(0) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A19, tax parcel number 

1510909; (p) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A20, tax parcel number 1510910; (q) 2401 

Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A22, tax parcel number 1510912; (r) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. 

Unit A23, tax parcel number 1510913; 

(s) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A24, tax 

parcel number 1510914; 

(t) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A25, tax parcel number 

1510915; 

(uw) 2401 Lakeshore Blvd. Unit A26, tax parcel number 1510916; and (v) 

2401 Lakeshore 

Blvd. Unit A27, 

tax parcel number 1510917 

(collectively, 

the 

“Subject Properties”). 

4. 

I am a member of Chip Properties. 

5. 

I serve as registered agent of Chip Properties. 

6. 

Chip Properties’ registered office is located at 280 Mill Street, Suite B, 

Rochester, Michigan 48307 (the “Registered Office”). 

7. 

My regular workplace 

is 

at the Registered Office, 

such that 

I am 

working at the Registered Office on most business days between the hours of 9:00 

a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 

Page 2 of 4

8. 

I regularly receive mail through the United States Postal Service at 

the Registered Office, including mail directed to Chip Properties. 

9. 

No person receives or gathers mail for Chip Properties other than me. 

10. 

No notice of assessment for the Subject Properties (or any one of the 

Subject Properties) arrived in the mail at the Registered Office in 2026 before 

March 10, 2026. 

11. 

No notice of assessment for the Subject Properties (or any one of the 

Subject Properties) arrived to me in 2026 by any other means. 

12. 

On a date after March 10, 2026, the notices of assessment attached to 

this Affidavit as Exhibit A (the “Notices of Assessment”) arrived through the mail at 

the Registered Office. 

13. 

By 

the 

time 

that 

the 

Notices 

of Assessment 

arrived, 

the 

City 

of 

Marquette’s 2026 March Board 

of Review had already closed according 

to the 

meeting dates set forth on the Notices of Assessment. 

14. 

Chip 

Properties 

had 

no 

notice 

of 

the 

Subject 

Properties’ 

2026 

assessments in time to timely protest the assessments to the City of Marquette’s 

2026 March Board of Review. 

15. 

Chip Properties had no notice 

of the meeting dates 

of the City 

of 

Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review until after the 2026 March Board of 

Page 3 of 4

Review had already closed according to the meeting dates set forth on the Notices of 

9 

Job'n Foster 

Assessment. 

This Affidavit was signed and sworn before me on June 5006 by John Foster. 

(ane AWAD 

Notary Public 

JAMES STEPHEN WEILER 

NOTARY PUBLIC - MICHIGAN 

OAKLAND COUNTY 

ar 

“oy, 

MY COMMISSION 

EXPIRES; 

91092026 

hes, 

ACTING IN 

COUNTY 

oo 

3 

= 

: 

Page 4 of 4

Exhibit F

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Vincent Nystrom,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-002475

City Of Marquette,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: September 17, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Exhibit G

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Vincent Nystrom, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 26-002475

City Of Marquette,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that:

Petitioner failed to protest the assessment to Respondent’s March Board of Review, as 

required by MCL 205.735a. As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable 

power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and deadlines, it has 

no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested. See Sixarp, LLC v Byron 

Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

MTT Docket No. 26-002475

Page 2 of 2

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: September 17, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

← View full record