24-003355.pdf
Dustin Cupp, Christina Cupp, Petitioners V Township Of Mendon, Respondent · 24-003355-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 Dustin Cupp and Christina Cupp, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioners, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION MTT Docket No. 24-003355 v Case Type: Qualified Agricultural Exemption Mendon Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT Location of Hearing: Telephonic Hearing Held on: December 5, 2025 Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: Tom Dillon, Dustin Cupp Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Dale Hutson SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT The subject properties’ taxable values (TV) was not properly adjusted under MCL 211.27a. The subject properties’ TV for the tax year at issue shall be as follows: Parcel Number: 75-010-016-013-00 Year TV 2025 $2,654 Parcel Number: 75-010-016-012-00 Year TV 2025 $2,654 PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 26, 2024, Respondent issued notice that the subject property’s TV would be uncapped for tax year 2025. Petitioners filed a petition with the Tribunal on August 30, 2024, and Respondent filed an answer on November 5, 2024.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 2 of 8 Petitioners submitted the decision of the 2025 March Board of Review (BOR) on July 30, 2025. The amount of the TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW The issue in this matter is whether Petitioners have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject property’s TV was improperly uncapped under MCL 211.27a. Under the General Property Tax Act, property taxes are based on the property’s TV for the tax year at issue. MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s state equalized value (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).2 MCL 211.27a(6) defines “transfer of ownership,” in relevant part, as follows: As used in this act, "transfer of ownership" means the conveyance of title to or a present interest in property, including the beneficial use of the property, the value of which is substantially equal to the value of the fee interest. Transfer of ownership of property includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) A conveyance by deed. MCL 211.27a(7) indicates that certain events are not transfers of ownership. That includes MCL 211.27a(7)(o), which states: Except as provided in subsection (6)(k), a transfer of qualified agricultural property, if the person to whom the qualified agricultural property is transferred files an affidavit with the assessor of the local tax collecting unit in which the qualified agricultural property is located and with the register of deeds for the county in which the qualified agricultural property is located attesting that the qualified agricultural property will remain qualified agricultural property. The affidavit under this subdivision shall be in a form prescribed by the department of treasury. An owner of qualified agricultural property shall inform a prospective buyer of that qualified agricultural property that the qualified agricultural property is subject to the recapture tax provided in the agricultural property recapture act, 2000 PA 261, MCL 1 See MCL 205.762(1). 2 See MCL 211.34d.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 3 of 8 211.1001 to 211.1007, if the qualified agricultural property is converted by a change in use, as that term is defined in section 2 of the agricultural property recapture act, 2000 PA 261, MCL 211.1002. If property ceases to be qualified agricultural property at any time after a transfer subject to this subdivision, all of the following shall occur: (i) The taxable value of that property, or, if subsection (6)(k) applies, a portion of it established as a separate tax parcel, shall be adjusted under subsection (3) as of the December 31 in the year that the property, or, if subsection (6)(k) applies, a portion of it established as a separate tax parcel, ceases to be qualified agricultural property. (ii) The property, or, if subsection (6)(k) applies, a portion of it established as a separate tax parcel, is subject to the recapture tax provided for under the agricultural property recapture act, 2000 PA 261, MCL 211.1001 to 211.1007. 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.”3 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or 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.”4 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering judgment. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE A. Petitioners’ Evidence Petitioners’ contentions of TV: Parcel Number: 75-010-016-013-00 Year TV 2025 $2,654 Parcel Number: 75-010-016-012-00 Year TV 2025 $2,654 The exhibits offered by Petitioners may be viewed on lines 2, 7, 13, 14, and 26 of the docket maintained in this case.5 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 3 See also MCR 2.517(a). 4 Id. 5 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 4 of 8 Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioners contend they purchased the subject properties in June 2024. The properties were classified as agricultural and received a qualified agricultural exemption (QAE) for tax year 2024. Petitioners filed Form 3676 on June 3, 2024, which Respondent denied. Petitioners contend the subject properties remain primarily devoted to agricultural use. Petitioners contend they satisfied the requirements of MCL 211.27a(7)(o). Petitioners contend that the respective 2025 assessments continue to indicate that the properties are classified as agricultural and received the QAE for 2025. The sale was not a transfer of ownership because Petitioners qualify for the requirements of MCL 211.27a(7)(o). Based on sworn testimony, Petitioners contend that the issues are the QAE and Respondent’s uncapping. The parcels had QAEs entered prior to the transfer, and the transfer is not an uncapping event. The properties are used for a herd of cows but need more hay ground. The grounds are being seeded for hay and alfalfa as well as timothy seed. More than 50% of the land is used in agriculture. Petitioners walked and flagged off the acreage to determine its percentage of agricultural use. Petitioners contend that, after the sale, Petitioners timely filed the affidavits. In 2025, Respondent changed the classification on each parcel to agricultural but uncapped each assessment. The uncapping should be reversed under MCL 211.27a. Petitioners dispute Respondent’s interpretation and contend that a straightforward statutory analysis supports their position. Petitioners contend that these parcels have always been classified as agricultural property. B. Respondent’s Evidence The property’s TV, as confirmed by the BOR, for the tax year at issue: Parcel Number: 75-010-016-013-00 Year TV 2025 $9,200 Parcel Number: 75-010-016-012-00 Year TV 2025 $9,200 The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the docket maintained in this case.6 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 6 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 5 of 8 Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Respondent contends that the subject parcels receive the QAE. The request to recap after the 2024 sale was denied because the parcels have not been used for agriculture every year since 1999, as required under statute. Based on sworn testimony, Respondent contends that it uncapped these parcels as required by MCL 211.27a. Subsection (8) indicates that, to remain capped, a property must have had the QAE at all times from tax year 1999 forward. The re-capping process under MCL 211.27a(8) is different than the typical recapping processing, but neither is applicable to 2024. As a result, the uncapping should be affirmed. FINDINGS OF FACT The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The subject properties are located in Mendon Township, St. Joseph County. 2. The subject properties are classified as agricultural for tax year 2025. 3. The subject properties were classified as agricultural and received a 100% QAE for tax year 2024. 4. In 2024 and after the conveyance, Petitioners timely filed an affidavit attesting that each of the subject parcels would remain qualified agricultural property. 5. Respondent uncapped the subject properties’ TV under MCL 211.27a(6)(a). 6. Petitioners appealed Respondent’s TV determinations to Respondent’s 2025 March BOR. 7. Petitioners filed this appeal on or before the deadline for filing a valuation appeal for agricultural property in 2025. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: Procedurally, the Tribunal first notes that the case was plead and answered as an appeal of the denial of QAE. However, it is undisputed that the subject properties each received a full QAE for tax year 2025. That issue is not in dispute, nor was it related to the actual basis upon which Petitioners’ contentions are based. The parcels are each classified as agricultural for tax year 2025 and have a full QAE as a result. The Tribunal has no authority over a property’s classification, and as a result, it shall not endeavor to examine whether the subject properties qualify for the QAE. The issues brought forth are related to uncapping and transfer of ownership. Amended pleadings are not required because the parties, through evidence and testimony, have fairly established their positions and understood the position of the opposing party. Respondent contends that the subjects’ 2025 assessments must be uncapped under MCL 211.27a because of a transfer of ownership under subsection (6)(a) and, further, that subsection (8) precludes application of subsection (7)(o); Petitioners contend there is no transfer of ownership because subsection (7)(o) applies and, further, that subsection (8) is not relevant in this case. The Tribunal finds that this issue is properly
Page 6
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 6 of 8 pending as a result of Petitioners’ compliance with MCL 205.735a, namely appealing the assessments to Respondent’s 2025 March BOR and then appealing those assessments to the Tribunal by the statutory deadline.7 In Lyle Schmidt Farms, LLC v Mendon Township,8 the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the transfer of properties indisputably used as qualified agricultural properties at the time of transfer and for which the buyers failed to submit affidavits contending that the properties would continue to be used for qualified agricultural purposes. The Schmidt court considered the requirements related to uncapping and qualified agricultural property in the context of uncapping and the General Property Tax Act.9 It determined that: when title to qualified agricultural property is conveyed, there is no transfer of ownership of the property under the GPTA, and therefore no uncapping, if “the person to whom the qualified agricultural property is transferred files an affidavit . . . attesting that the qualified agricultural property will remain qualified agricultural property[ ]” . . . and cited MCL 211.27a(7)(o).10 The Schmidt court went on to state that: “[F]urther, MCL 211.27a(8) provides for “recapping” the taxable value of qualified agricultural property when an affidavit under MCL 211.27a(7)(o) is not filed within the year of the transfer of title of the qualified agricultural property, but is filed later[ ] [i]f all of the following conditions are satisfied” and then goes on to list the elements of MCL 211.27a(8). Schmidt is factually distinguishable from the present case because it is undisputed that Petitioners timely filed the affidavits after acquiring the properties. However, the examination of the relevant statutory subsections in this case by the Schmidt court is both precedentially binding upon the Tribunal and legally sound. Respondent’s assertion that the properties cannot remain capped as ongoing qualified agricultural properties is not correct because the requirements of MCL 211.27a(8) are not applicable in this case. The properties were QAE properties prior to the transfer, Petitioners timely filed the appropriate affidavits, and the properties remain QAE properties as of the tax year at issue. Petitioners have therefore met their burden to show that the subject properties’ 2024 transfers each was not a transfer of ownership as defined by MCL 211.27a(7)(o), and as a result, the properties’ TV shall be adjusted. JUDGMENT IT IS ORDERED that the properties’ TV for the tax year at issue shall be as set forth in the Summary of Judgment section of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 7 A petition was filed in MTT Docket No. 25-002956. The Tribunal dismissed that case as duplicative to the present case. 8 See Lyle Schmidt Farms, LLC v Mendon Twp, 315 Mich App 824; 891 NW2d 43 (2016) (Schmidt). 9 PA 206 of 1893, as amended, MCL 211.1 et seq (GPTA). 10 Schmidt at 832.
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 7 of 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment rolls for the tax year at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to reflect the property’s taxable values within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.11 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%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 9.47%, (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%, and (xix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. 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. 11 See MCL 205.755.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 24-003355 Page 8 of 8 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 Entered: March 10, 2026 bw 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