23-003062 Coan v Oceola Twp FOJ - signed by JMW.pdf
William M Coan, Petitioner V Township Of Oceola, Respondent · 24-004242-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 William M Coan, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 23-003062 v Case Type: Valuation Oceola Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Joshua M. Wease ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT DOCKET NUMBER 24-004242 FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT Location of Hearing: Lansing, MI Hearing Held on: June 26, 20241 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: William M Coan Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Bonny L. Moore and Lindsay Scott SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 4707-33-100-047 Year TCV SEV TV 2023 $394,600 $197,300 $114,893 The 2024 tax year shall be severed and assigned a new docket number. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2023 March BOR. Petitioner filed a Petition with the Tribunal on June 23, 2023, and Respondent filed an Answer on September 11, 2023. 1 This case was heard along with Docket No. 23-003060, which involved an adjacent property involving the same parties, arguments, and evidence.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 2 of 12 The amount of the SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.2 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issues in this matter are: 1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. “The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the property.”3 The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market value.”6 The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of both in arriving at its determination.”8 The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10 Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the evidence.”11 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or 2 See MCL 205.762(1). 3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 5 MCL 211.27(1). 6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 8 Id. at 356. 9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 10 See MCL 211.34d. 11 See also MCR 2.517(a).
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 3 of 12 every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or reasoned opinion.”12 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering judgment. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV, and TV: Parcel Number: 4707-33-100-047 Year TCV SEV TV 2023 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 1. Evidence, filed on June 23, 2023, with the petition: a. 2023 Board of Review Decision b. 2023 Petition to Board of Review 2. Evidence, filed on January 4, 2024 a. Written statement b. Photos of property c. Appraisal dated August 3, 2021, for 796 N. Latson Road d. 44th Circuit Court Order in Coan v Ercolani, Docket No. 2020-30740-NZ e. Residential SESC Waiver issued by Livingston County Drain Commissioners Office on July 2, 2019 f. Affidavit of Robert Ercolani g. Oceola Township Waiver of Land Use Permit on July 2, 2019 h. Answer Document from Docket No. 23-003062 regarding 790 Latson Road i. 2024 Property Record Card for Parcel No. 4707-33-100-047 j. 2023 MTT petition regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-047 k. 2023 Board of Review Decision regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-047 l. 2023 Petition to Board of Review Decision regarding Parcel No. 4707-33- 100-047 m. 2023 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-047 n. 2022 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-047 o. 2020 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-036 p. Answer Document from Docket No. 23-003060 regarding 800 Latson Road 12 Id.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 4 of 12 q. 2024 Property Record Card dated September 11, 2023, for Parcel No. 4707-33-100-048 r. Copy of 2023 Board of Review Decision s. Copy of 2023 Petition to Board of Review t. 2023 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-048 u. 2021 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-038 v. 2020 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-038 w. 2018 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-038 x. 2023 Petition for Docket No. 23-003059 regarding Parcel No. 4707-33- 100-004 y. 2024 Property Record Card dated September 11, 2023, for Parcel No. 4707-33-100-004 z. 2023 Board of Review Decision regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-004 aa. 2023 Petition to Board of Review Decision regarding Parcel No. 4707-33- 100-004 bb. 2023 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-004 cc. 2022 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-004 dd. 2020 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-004 ee. 2018 Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification regarding Parcel No. 4707-33-100-004 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the property is over assessed because it does not account for flooding and drainage issues on the property. Petitioner states that the cause of the flooding is that the neighbor received a permit to build 18 inch high berms on the low points of the north and south borders that directly impede natural water flow from north to south. The impact of these berms on Petitioner’s property has been the subject of an ongoing lawsuit against their neighbor in circuit court. Petitioner argues that this flooding diminishes the value of the subject because it decreases access to the property, limits future development, and the market will generally reject flooded property.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 5 of 12 B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year at issue: Parcel Number: 4707-33-100-047 Year TCV SEV TV 2023 $307,200 $153,600 $114,893 Respondent’s Revised contention of value: Parcel Number: 4707-33-100-047 Year TCV SEV TV 2023 $394,600 $197,300 $114,893 Respondent offered the following exhibits: 1. Evidence, filed on September 11, 2023, with the answer: a. 2023 Property Record Card dated September 11, 2023 2. Evidence, filed on January 16, 2024: a. Comparable Sales spreadsheet b. 2024 Property Record card for Subject dated January 15, 2024. c. Areal photo of area d. Survey dated October 7, 2021 e. 2024 Property Record Card for Parcel No. 4707-36-300-028 (Comp 1) f. 2024 Property Record Card for Parcel No. 4707-17-200-005 (Comp 2) g. 2024 Property Record Card for Parcel No. 4707-25-100-014 (Comp 3) No exhibits were excluded from evidence. Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends that the property is properly assessed according to the law. Respondent presented their valuation disclosure, which relies on the analysis of three sales from 2022. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject property is located at 790 N. Latson in Livingston County. 2. The subject property is classified as Residential Improved. 3. The subject property has flooding and drainage issues caused by berms constructed on neighboring parcels. 4. Petitioner submitted an appraisal with a valuation date of July 15, 2021, for a property located at 796 Latson. 5. Respondent submitted valuation evidence based on the sales comparison approach that relies on three sales.
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 6 of 12 a. Sale 1, located at 64 N. Kellogg, sold on October 18, 2022, for $410,000. It has an adjusted sale price of $402,940. b. Sale 2, located at 3915 N. Latson, sold on October 13, 2022, for $359,000. It has an adjusted sale price of $390,019. c. Sale 3, located at 1628 Kellogg, sold on April 29, 2022, for $400,000. d. Respondent’s valuation under the sales comparison approach concludes to a value of $391,080. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A proceeding before the Tax Tribunal is original, independent, and de novo.13 The Tribunal's factual findings are to be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.14 Further, “[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.”15 In doing so, the Tribunal shall consider the three most common approaches to valuation - the capitalization of income approach, the sales comparison or market approach, and the cost-less-depreciation approach.16 Neither party raised any issue with respect to the highest and best use of the property by way of the testimony and evidence provided, and the Tribunal finds that there is no dispute that its highest and best use is continued use as residential property. All evidence submitted by both parties was considered in reaching a decision in this case. However, if specific evidence is not discussed in this section of the Opinion and Judgment, the presiding judge has determined that this evidence shall be given no weight or credibility. Only evidence determined to have relevance in reaching a decision in this case is discussed below. Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”17 “This burden encompasses two separate concepts: (1) the burden of persuasion, which does not shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party.”18 Although the Tribunal has a duty to make an independent determination of value,19 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with evidence.”20 Indeed, the Tribunal’s factual findings must be supported by 13 MCL 205.735a(2). 14 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Dow Chemical Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458, 462-463; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 15 Antisdale at 277; citing Pantlind Hotel Co v State Tax Comm, 3 Mich App 170; 141 NW2d 699 (1966). 16 See Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 484-485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991); Pantlind Hotel Co, 3 Mich App 170. 17 MCL 205.737(3). 18 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 19 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 20 Dicastal N Am, Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 22, 2024 (Docket No. 365333) citing Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App 379, 408- 410; 576 NW2d 667, 680-681 (1998).
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 7 of 12 competent, material, and substantial evidence.21 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”22 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.23 “The ‘substantial evidence test’ has been defined as evidence which a reasoning mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion. While it consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the evidence.”24 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”25 The “thing to be proven” in this case is the TCV of the property at issue. TCV is defined as “the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.”26 TCV is traditionally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.27 “Variations of these approaches and entirely new methods may be useful if found to be accurate and reasonably related to the fair-market value of the subject property.”28 Flooding Issue Petitioner’s main argument is that his property’s value is diminished by flooding that is caused by berms that his neighbor constructed. The berms have been the subject of a lawsuit against this neighbor. Petitioner contends that the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV and in support of this contention and focuses on the main negative value influence of flooding on the property caused by berms on the neighbor’s property. Petitioner provided pictures of the property when it floods on many days during the year. However, Petitioner failed to submit any evidence establishing these issues as fact and also failed to submit any market-based evidence establishing the quantitative impact, if any, the flooding and drainage issues would have on the property’s TCV. Last, there is no evidence that the flooding and drainage issues impact the function or value of the improvements. According to the photos and property drawings, the improvements are located some distance from the flooding. The photos show that the subject’s driveway has standing water but looks passable by a standard vehicle. Petitioner stated that this standing water interferes with use of the driveway much of the year. A significant portion of the subject’s TCV is attributed to the improvements, but Petitioner focused solely on the perceived challenges of accessing 21 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); 22 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 23 See MCR 2.504(B)(2). See also Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354-355 and Great Lakes v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App at 408-410. 24 Russo v Dep't of Licensing & Regul, 119 Mich App 624, 631; 326 NW2d 583, 587 (1982). See also Dow Chem Co v Dep't of Treasury, 185 Mich App 458; 462 NW2d 765 (1990). 25 Goff v Bil–Mar Foods, Inc (After Remand), 454 Mich 507, 514 n 5; 563 NW2d 214 (1997), overruled on other grounds in Mudel v Great Atl & Pac Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000), quoting Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed). See also Moore v Prestige Painting, 277 Mich App 437; 745 NW2d 816 (2007). 26 MCL 211.27(1). 27 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 28 Id.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 8 of 12 the land via the water covered driveway. Further, aerial photos of the area demonstrate that pockets of standing water – if not established ponds – can be seen in most adjacent properties throughout the area. Petitioner’s testimony and photos conflict in explaining the severity of the flooding issue. Considering the evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the flooding is so severe that it causes a significant detriment to the subject property to decrease its value by $95,000 as stated in their Petition or decrease the value of the property to virtually nothing as Petitioner testified at the hearing. Last, Petitioner has presented convincing evidence that this state of flooding is temporary and caused by constructed features that and can be resolved by changes in berms or other engineering solution for which they are already pursuing as a legal remedy (and may involve compensation for lost value, costs to repair, and other damages) in another court. Cost Approach TCV is generally determined using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.29 Respondent calculated the subject property’s assessment using the mass appraisal, cost-less-depreciation approach to value, which includes market adjustments through the use of a county multiplier and an economic condition factor (ECF). Although this approach is lawful and generally mandated for assessment purposes,30 it is most applicable to newly constructed properties.31 It “can sometimes be applied to older properties given adequate data to measure depreciation,” but “investors or purchasers of older buildings . . . may be more concerned about expenditures that they will need to make after the purchase to make the property suitable to their needs than they are by the calculation of replacement or reproduction cost and depreciation.”32 Further, “when improvements are considerably older or do not represent the highest and best use of the land as though vacant, the physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence may be more difficult to estimate.” 33 The cost approach also requires that land value be well supported and Respondent did not provide the land sale studies used in its valuation of the subject property in this case.34 The Supreme Court has also recognized that “while actual and reproduction cost are some evidence of value, the constitutional and statutory standard is market-based,”35 and “the market approach is the only valuation method that directly reflects the balance of supply and demand for property in 29 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). 30 See MCL 211.10e and State Tax Commission, Michigan Assessors Manual, Vol. I-III. 31 “Because cost and market value are usually more closely related when improvements are new, the cost approach is more important in estimating the market value of new or relatively new construction.” Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 15th ed. 2020) p. 530. The Supreme Court has also recognized that “while actual and reproduction cost are some evidence of value, the constitutional and statutory standard is market-based.” First Fed Sav & Loan Ass'n of Flint v City of Flint, 415 Mich 702, 705; 329 NW2d 755, 757 (1982). Further, “the market approach is the only valuation method that directly reflects the balance of supply and demand for property in marketplace trading.” Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 353-354. 32 Id. 33 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 15th ed. 2020) p. 531. 34 Id. 35 First Fed Sav & Loan Ass'n of Flint v City of Flint, 415 Mich 702, 705; 329 NW2d 755, 757 (1982).
Page 9
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 9 of 12 marketplace trading.”36 Respondent’s valuation disclosure does not rely on the cost approach. Petitioner did not develop a valuation based on the cost approach either. Given the subject’s age, there is good reason to not apply this approach for the year at issue. Income Approach “In the income capitalization approach, the present value of the anticipated future benefits of property ownership is measured. . . . In direct capitalization, the relationship between one year’s income and value is reflected in either a capitalization rate or an income multiplier.”37 In this case, there is no evidence that this property is used for income generation, therefore it is not an appropriate approach for this property for the years at issue. Sales Comparison Approach Respondent has provided three strong sales that are timely and require minimal adjustment to extrapolate a market value for the subject for the year at issue. The three sales are from 2022, which involve homes of similar age, size, and condition. All three sales are less than a half of a mile from the subject and are therefore within the same neighborhood. They represent a narrow range of sale prices between $390,019 and $402,940. The same can be said for the adjusted sale prices, which only required between -2.3% and 7.9% adjustments. This is strong evidence that the sales were similar to the subject. Sale 1 is only two years difference in age and differs in site size by .06 acres. Its square footage only differs from the subject by 68 SF. Sale 2 is 20 years older but is only off in square footage by 15 square foot (SF). It is superior in that it has a 1500 SF pole barn and more than double the lot size. Sale 3 only differs in square footage by 12 SF, has a smaller pole barn, and a larger attached garage. Its lot size is over three times that of the subject. Respondent’s adjustments to the sale prices are consistent. Despite differences between the properties, the Tribunal finds the sales and their adjustments to be similar to the subject, internally consistent, relevant, and persuasive. Petitioner did not provide any credible evidence that challenged Respondent’s sales analysis or adjustments to the sale prices. “The sales comparison approach is most useful when a number of similar properties have recently been sold or are currently for sale in the subject property’s market.”38 The Tribunal finds Respondent’s valuation evidence more credible and persuasive, as compared to Petitioner’s case. Petitioner’s Evidence Petitioner’s appraisal has several problems that undermine its credibility. Such reports are not conclusive evidence of value, and each must be evaluated on an 36 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 353-354. 37 Id. 38 The Appraisal of Real Estate at 36.
Page 10
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 10 of 12 individual basis to determine both reliability and relevance to the tax years at issue. This is particularly true when the appraisal is not prepared specifically for the purpose of an appeal before the Tribunal, though preparation for another purpose does not preclude consideration of the appraisal or the sales utilized therein. First, the appraisal is not for the subject property, but for a nearby property he owns located at 796 Latson. Second, the appraisal that was submitted during the course of a lawsuit against his neighbor in circuit court. That lawsuit may have had the goals of not only remedying a loss in value, but also compensation for costs to repair the damages or to prevent the flooding. These objectives are not related to the instant case, which is to determine the property’s TCV for the years at issue. Third, the appraisal statement had a valuation date of July 15, 2021. This date is far removed from the applicable tax days at issue in this case, which are December 31, 2022, and December 31, 2023. Last, the appraisal purports to find that the flooding has caused a decrease in value of $95,000. However, the appraiser’s five-page appraisal is a compilation of conclusory statements and contains no data or analysis that the appraiser made to reach their conclusion. The appraiser did not provide any information as to what approach to valuation that they applied. This appraisal is not credible or persuasive for considering the property’s TCV for the years at issue. Further, even if it had some credibility, Petitioner has not explained why an appraisal that shows a decrease in value of another property by $95,000 supports his argument here that the subject’s TCV is $107,200 lower than the BOR’s conclusion of value. Therefore, Petitioner’s appraisal is given no weight. The remaining evidence provided by Petitioner included a collection of Notices of Assessments for the subject and other nearby properties that Petitioner owns, and documents related to his lawsuit against his neighbor. None of Petitioner’s valuation evidence applies any of the three given approaches to valuation. Reconciliation of Value Petitioner has not met their burden of proof that the subject property has a TCV of $200,000 for the years at issue. On the other hand, Respondent has provided credible and persuasive evidence under the sales comparison approach that the TCV of the subject property is $394,600 for 2023. Though it reflects a significant increase over the value indicated by the original assessment, the mass appraisal cost methodology used to calculate the original assessment is not as persuasive as the market approach presented here.39 “The market approach is the only valuation method that directly reflects the balance of supply and demand for property in marketplace trading.”40 However, neither party provided evidence of the subject’s TCV for tax year 2024. Therefore, the 2024 tax year is severed and will be assigned a new docket number and will allow the parties to submit evidence and have a separate proceeding. 39 “Because cost and market value are usually more closely related when improvements are new, the cost approach is more important in estimating the market value of new or relatively new construction . . . . [It] can sometimes be applied to older properties given adequate data to measure depreciation.” Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 15th ed. 2020) p. 530.. 40 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 353-354.
Page 11
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 11 of 12 JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED that the 2024 tax year shall be SEVERED and assigned Docket No. 24-004242. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the property’s SEV and TV for the tax year(s) at issue shall be as set forth in the Summary of Judgment section of this Final Opinion and Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax year(s) at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s TCV and TV within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.41 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%, and (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%. 41 See MCL 205.755.
Page 12
MTT Docket No. 23-003062 Page 12 of 12 This Final Opinion and Judgment 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 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. 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 _______________________________________ Date Entered by Tribunal: January 28, 2025 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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk