24-003589_Recon.pdf
Judy L Gentner, Petitioner V Township Of Burtchville, Respondent · 24-003589-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
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 Judy L Gentner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003589 Burtchville Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On September 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Final Opinion and Judgment entered in this case on August 25, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner states there was an error in their e-file profile which prevented Petitioner from submitting their exceptions to the Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) entered on June 17, 2025. Although Petitioner submitted the exceptions via email, Petitioner was informed that exceptions could not be submitted via email. Petitioner refiled the exceptions after the error in the system was corrected, but the judge would not accept the paperwork that was electronically filed because it was after the deadline. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration addresses the Tribunal determination that Petitioner’s exceptions were untimely. The POJ indicated that “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ).” The POJ went on to state that, “[e]xceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any matter addressed in the POJ.” Additionally, Tax Tribunal Rule 291(1) provides as follows: [a] party may submit exceptions to a decision by a referee or an administrative law judge, other than a tribunal member, by filing with the tribunal and serving on the opposing parties the exceptions within 20 days after the entry of the decision. The exceptions must be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted before or otherwise admitted at the hearing and any matter addressed in the proposed opinion and judgment and demonstrate good cause as to why the decision should be adopted, modified, or a rehearing held. In addition to the fact that Petitioner did not timely submit their exceptions to the POJ, the proof of service filed in connection with the exceptions stated that Petitioner served a “copy of the Proposed Opinion & Judgment” on Respondent. Given Petitioner’s
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003589 Page 2 of 3 exceptions were not properly served on Respondent, the Tribunal properly determined that the exceptions were not properly pending before the Tribunal. Furthermore, despite Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, the issues raised within Petitioner’s submissions were considered by the ALJ in rendering the POJ. With regard to Petitioner’s claim that the sale of 6500 Lakeshore Road was not an estate sale, the POJ provided the following summary with regard to 6500 Lakeshore Road: Petitioner submitted comparable sales grids containing properties they claim are similar in terms of lot depth, area, common main road, view, beach, and sea wall. Petitioner relies heavily on the comparable sale at 6500 Lakeshore, which is located next door to the subject and sold for $695,000 in June 2022. Petitioner applied 57.3% gross adjustments for differences in construction materials, house square footage, bath, walkout basement, fireplace, lot width, garage, and camera/security, resulting in an adjusted sales price of $516,122. The Tribunal finds that Petitioner’s adjustments are based on general broad market information and not data designed to reflect buyer preferences in the subject market. The 2022 sale indicates it was an estate sale, and it is unclear to what extent the estate may have acted in a manner different than a reasonably prudent seller due to pressure to sell the property. Even if, as Petitioner suggests, the sale of 6500 Lakeshore Road was not an estate sale, the POJ pointed out that Petitioner’s adjustments were not sufficiently explained or sourced. Furthermore, although Respondent did address Petitioner’s use and reliance on the sale of 6500 Lakeshore, it is clear that the ALJ did not rely on the sale of that property in rendering a determination of the subject property’s value. Within the Reconciliation of Value section of the POJ, the following summary was provided: Overall, the greatest weight is given to Respondent’s cost approach. The record cards and supporting documentation are the best evidence of value, as they incorporate a full spectrum of market activity across the relevant sales periods. The various comparable sales grid submitted by the parties are less well supported. They may lack sufficient details regarding whether those sales were market-based transactions, and most of the adjustments appear to be based on broader market data rather than local data. Some weight can be given to the subject property sale and to Petitioner’s comparable sale at 6008 Wildrose, but in the context of the weight given to Respondent’s cost approach, those sales, particularly the subject sale, are found to properly support Respondent’s cost approach. As indicated in the POJ, “[i]t is the duty of the [T]ax [T]ribunal to select the approach which provides the most accurate valuation under the circumstances of the individual case. In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation. . . .” The POJ considered the parties’ evidence under both the cost approach
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003589 Page 3 of 3 and sales comparison approach and made a determination that the “record cards and supporting documentation are the best evidence of value, as they incorporate a full spectrum of market activity across the relevant sales periods.” In terms of the taxable value calculation, the POJ correctly noted that, because the subject property was subject to a transfer of ownership in 2023, the 2024 taxable value was set at the same level as the state equalized value. The fact that Petitioner may have received incorrect information about the calculation of taxable value, or misunderstood the information that was provided, has no impact on the POJ as it properly reflects the directive contained within MCL 211.27a. Given the above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the FOJ that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.1 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, 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 Entered: October 3, 2025 smm 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 1 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted).