24-003598.pdf

Julius J. Pawlicha, Petitioner V City Of Hazel Park, Respondent · 24-003598-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

 

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 

 

Julius J Pawlicha, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

 

 

City of Hazel Park, 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

 

Respondent. 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Sean M. Mulchay, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic Hearing 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

October 29, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Julius Pawlicha 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Mark Lorkowski 

 

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 2024 

March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 26, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 16, 2024. 

 

The amount of the state equalized value (SEV) or taxable value (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.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is 

included in this proceeding.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value 

(TCV). 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

Page 2 of 7 

 

“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 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 28-25-36-432-020 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$65,000

$32,500

$32,500

2025

$60,000

$30,000

$30,000

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 of the docket maintained in 

this case.11 

 

No evidence was excluded. 

 

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 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.

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

Page 3 of 7 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that Respondent’s failure to enforce the laws, codes and ordinances have caused 

Petitioner’s property values to be lower than the assessment. The new Hazel Park 

animal shelter next door to the subject property is open twenty-four hours per day and is 

a total nuisance. The animals howl, cry and fight all night and Petitioner is not able to 

enjoy their ownership of the subject property. The adjacent property also emits a foul 

odor that impacts the value of the subject property. 

 

During the hearing, Petitioner indicated that they have contacted the code enforcement 

department and police department, but their department has not taken any action to 

address Petitioner’s concerns. The city is not interested in enforcing the laws and 

ordinances despite taking an oath to do so. Petitoner’s neighbors do not like Petitioner 

living at the subject property and are interested in Petitioner and his brother moving to 

another property. Petitioner believes that there are troublemakers in the area, and 

problems in the neighborhood will not be resolved until those individuals leave. The 

property located at 1750 East Hayes has tall grass that is not being addressed by code 

enforcement department. Petitioner has contacted the newspaper to assist in 

addressing the issues, but nothing has been done. There are animals, including rats, 

opossums, and cats, that are overrunning the neighborhood. Petitioner attributes this to 

a neighboring cat shelter that is operating near the subject property. The operator of 

the shelter allows cats to stay in the garage during the winter. Petitioner has called 

animal control, but the situation has not been resolved. A privacy fence has been 

illegally installed at another property, and the city has not taken any action on this 

matter. Petitioner justified their 2025 value contention based on the fact that he does 

not receive any city services at the subject property. 

 

On rebuttal, Petitioner stated that his brother suffers from certain medical conditions 

which are exasperated by the noise, animals, and corresponding smells coming from 

neighboring properties, especially in the summer months. These nuisances significantly 

impact the value of the subject property. The weeds at 1715 East Milton were as high 

as the house, sticking out over the lot lines, and bringing down power lines. Teenagers 

are loitering and using drugs at neighboring properties even though these properties are 

located in a drug free zone. The overgrown landscape makes it difficult for these 

activities to be observed. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR for the tax year(s) at issue: 

 

Parcel Number: 28-25-36-432-020 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$75,460

$37,730

$14,390

2025

$84,320

$42,160

$14,830

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

Page 4 of 7 

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 6 and 7 of the docket 

maintained in this case.12 

 

No evidence was excluded. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends 

that the property’s TCV, assessed value (AV), and TV were properly calculated and in 

conformance with the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes, and applicable 

regulations. Although Petitioner indicated that the property uncapped for the 2024 tax 

year, per the assessment change notice sent to Petitioner, an uncapping event did not 

occur, and the 2024 TV was not uncapped. Additionally, even though Petitioner claims 

that they appealed to the 2024 December BOR, Respondent has no record of Petitioner 

filing an appeal with the 2024 December BOR. 

 

At the hearing, Respondent’s representative testified that the property’s TCV and AV 

were properly calculated. Although Petitioner referenced an uncapping for 2024, there 

was no transfer of ownership. The adjustment applied was based on market values. 

Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Respondent’s representative confirmed that the property 

record card was not submitted. Respondent’s representative testified that they recently 

took over as the assessor of record and relied on the filings from the prior assessor. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

1. The subject property is located at 1737 E. Milton, Hazel Park in Oakland County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential real property. 

3. Petitioner did not submit any valuation evidence using one of the three 

recognized methods of valuation for the 2024 or 2025 tax years. 

4. Respondent did not submit any valuation evidence using one of the three 

recognized methods of valuation for the 2024 or 2025 tax years. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 

 

The Tribunal notes, as a preliminary matter, that the subject property’s assessment for 

the 2025 tax year is included in this proceeding.13 Pursuant to MCL 205.737(3), 

Petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”14 “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 

 

12 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. 

13 See MCL 205.737(5)(b) and TTR 273. 

14 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

Page 5 of 7 

 

evidence, which may shift to the opposing party.”15 Although the Tribunal has a duty to 

make an independent determination of value,16 the Michigan Court of Appeals has held 

that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of going forward with 

evidence.”17 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with competent evidence to 

challenge the assessed values of the property, then the tribunal's duty to make an 

independent determination of true cash value is not triggered.”18 Indeed, the Tribunal’s 

factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.19 

Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s assessment,”20 it 

may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if the petitioner 

fails to meet the burden of going forward.21 

 

“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.”22 “Competent evidence” has been defined as “that which the very nature of 

the thing to be proven requires . . . . ”23 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.”24 TCV is traditionally determined 

using one of three widely accepted appraisal methods: cost, income, and market.25 

 

15 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 

16 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 

17 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). 

18 Id. The Court further stated that it “will not assess the credibility of witnesses, and the determination of 

the weight to be given the evidence is within the Tax Tribunal’s discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). See 

also Country Meadows, GP v Macomb Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued April 1, 1997 (Docket No. 182305), wherein the Court held: “Plaintiffs cite Jones & Laughlin . . . . 

for the proposition that even when the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the tribunal must still 

make an independent determination of the true cash value of the property in question. However, unlike 

the plaintiff in Jones & Laughlin, in the present case plaintiffs did not meet their burden of going forward 

with evidence. Under the circumstances, the tribunal could not make an independent determination of 

the true cash value of the property because it had no evidence on which to base such a determination 

except that provided by defendant. A contrary holding would be tantamount to requiring the tribunal to 

hire its own appraiser.” Id. (citations omitted). 

19 See Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277; 362 NW2d 632 (1984). 

20 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 

21 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. 

22 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). 

23 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). 

24 MCL 211.27(1). 

25 Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass'n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 485; 473 NW2d 636 (1991).

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

Page 6 of 7 

 

“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.”26 

 

Here, Petitioner did not provide any evidence, let alone sufficient competent and 

material evidence to meet the burden of going forward for the 2024 or 2025 tax year. 

Petitioner’s evidentiary submissions amounted to a copy of the BOR decision and the 

notice of assessment. Neither of the documents support Petitioner’s claim that the 

property was over assessed. In terms of testimonial evidence, Petitioner focused on the 

neighboring properties and his belief that the adjacent properties negatively impacted 

the value of the subject property. However, Petitioner failed to provide any sales or 

other market-based evidence establishing the quantitative impact, if any, the 

neighboring properties and purported issues had on the value of the subject property. 

Therefore, the burden of going forward did not shift to Respondent, and the Tribunal’s 

duty to make an independent determination of value was not triggered. As such, 

involuntary dismissal of the 2024 and 2025 tax years is warranted. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken 

based on this decision. 

 

After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the 

exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: 

 

a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final 

Decision; 

b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final 

Decision; or 

c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other 

action as is necessary and appropriate. 

 

EXCEPTIONS 

 

The 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). Exceptions must 

be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any 

matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. 

 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of 

service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing 

party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the 

 

26 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003598 

Page 7 of 7 

 

opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service 

(i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. 

 

The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party 

to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions 

and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. 

 

If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed 

proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the 

exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _________________________________ 

Entered: November 10, 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 provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

← View full record