Explanation of Evidence - 013 _ 012 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

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

______________________

DUSTIN and CHRISTINA CUPP,

Petitioners,

MENDON TOWNSHIP,

Respondent.

MOAHR Docket No. 24-003355

Parcel Nos. 75-010-016-012-00 &

75-010-016-013-00

______________________________________________________________________________

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136)

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C.

Attorneys for Petitioners

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200

Grand Rapids, MI 49525

(616) 726-2258

tdillon@fosterswift.com

Dale Hutson

Representative for Respondent

60450 Farrand Road

Colon, MI 49040

(269) 432-2834

dalehutson@chartermi.net

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITIONER’S BRIEF AND EXPLANATION OF EVIDENCE

Petitioners, Dustin and Christina Cupp, by and through their attorneys, Foster, Swift,

Collins & Smith, P.C., submit this brief and explanation of evidence in support of the Petition.

Introduction

The property at issue in this appeal is farmland classified as agricultural that spans two

contiguous parcels in Mendon Township: property parcel numbers 75-010-016-012-00 and 75-

010-016-013-00 (the “Property” or “Subject Property”). The Property contains no structures or

buildings and is unoccupied. For the 2024 tax year, both parcels were classified as agricultural

and were receiving the Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption (“QAE”). Exhibit P-1, 2024

Page 2

Notices of Assessment. In June of 2023, Petitioners purchased the Property and filed affidavits

attesting that the Property is and will remain qualified agricultural property. Exhibit P-2, Qualified

Agricultural Affidavits. Following the purchase, and for the 2025 tax year, the Property remained

classified as agricultural and continued to receive the QAE. Exhibit P-3, 2025 Notices of

Assessment. Nevertheless, Respondent uncapped the Property’s taxable values in 2025.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. Instead, this appeal involves a single legal issue:

whether Respondent’s uncapping of the Property’s 2025 taxable values was proper despite the

Property’s agricultural classification1 and Petitioners’ compliance with the filing requirements of

MCL 211.27a(7)(o). Petitioners contend that the 2025 uncapping was contrary to the plain

language of MCL 211.27a(7)(o).

Though Petitioners originally filed this appeal in 2024, Petitioners appealed the Township’s

uncapping to Respondent’s 2025 March Board of Review. Exhibit P-4, 2025 March Board of

Review Documents. Petitioners then appealed the Board of Review’s denial to the Tribunal, which

was docketed as MTT Docket No. 25-002958. Exhibit P-5, Petition. The Tribunal determined

that the 2025 appeal involved the same issues as the instant case and so dismissed Docket No. 25-

002958 as duplicative.2

Factual Background

The relevant facts are not in dispute. The Subject Property consists of two contiguous real

property parcels that have been, for all times relevant to this appeal, classified as agricultural

vacant by Respondent Mendon Township.3 The Property was also receiving the QAE in both the

1 Because the parcels were classified as agricultural, they meet the definition of “qualified agricultural property” for

purposes of MCL 211.7dd(d) and MCL 211.27a(7)(o).

2 See Order of Dismissal, MTT Docket No. 25-002958.

3 Exhibits P-1 and P-3.

Page 3

2024 and 2025 tax years.4 Petitioners purchased the Property on June 3, 2024 (Exhibit P-6,

Warranty Deed) and immediately signed and filed affidavits for both parcels attesting that they

were qualified agricultural property and would remain qualified agricultural property with

Respondent.5

Respondent uncapped the Property’s taxable values in 2025. Respondent’s March Board

of Review gave no explanation as to why the taxable values were uncapped. Exhibit P-7, 2025

March Board of Review Denials. Respondent’s answer admits that the QAE was in place for the

2024 tax year but uncapped the Property because it has not been part of an agricultural operation

since 1999. P-8, Respondent’s Answer. Respondent’s Answer implies a belief that this appeal

involves a recapping of taxable value pursuant to MCL 211.27a(8). Petitioners, however, are not

requesting that the taxable value be recapped back to 2000 but, instead, contend that Petitioners’

purchase of the property is not a transfer of ownership pursuant to MCL 211.27a(7)(o).

Law and Analysis

There are no disputed facts in this case. The issues presented instead turn on statutory

interpretation. When courts interpret statutes, they first look to the specific statutory language to

determine the intent of the Legislature. City of Grand Rapids v Brookstone Capital, LLC, 334

Mich App 452, 459; 965 NW2d 232 (2020). Where the statutory language is unambiguous, the

plain meaning controls and judicial construction is not permitted. Universal Underwriters Ins.

Group v Auto Club Ins. Ass’n., 256 Mich App 541, 544; 666 NW2d 294 (2003).

Though it is often stated that tax exemptions are to be strictly construed in favor of the

taxing unit, the Michigan Supreme Court, in TOMRA of North America, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury,

505 Mich 333, 343; 952 NW2d 384 (2020), recently clarified this “standard” and held that the

4 Exhibits P-1 and P-3.

5 Exhibit P-2.

Page 4

judicially-created canon requiring strict construction is one of last resort and should only be

employed when an act’s language, after subjection to the ordinary rules of interpretation, presents

ambiguity. TOMRA, supra, at 343. In other words, where the statute is unambiguous, the plain

language controls and there is no “strict construction” in favor of the taxing unit.

Here, strict construction is inapplicable for the same reason it was in TOMRA – the statutory

language regarding the definition of “qualified agricultural property” (MCL 211.7dd(d)) and when

the transfer of “qualified agricultural property” results in a “transfer of ownership” (MCL

211.27a(7)(o)) is unambiguous.

The Subject Property meets the statutory requirements for the Qualified Agricultural

Property Exemption because it is classified as agricultural and Respondent agrees

that the Property is exempt as “qualified agricultural property.”

Under MCL 211.7dd(d), “qualified agricultural property” means “unoccupied property and

related buildings classified as agricultural, or other unoccupied property and related buildings

located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use . . . .” (emphasis added). Under

MCL 211.7ee(2), “Qualified agricultural property that is classified as agricultural under section

34c is exempt . . . .” Therefore, unoccupied property classified as agricultural meets the definition

of “qualified agricultural property.” See Phelps v Courtland Township, MTT Docket No. 16-

002057 (May 2, 2017) (attached as Exhibit P-9). Here, the Subject Property was classified as

agricultural for both the 2024 and 2025 tax years and, therefore, is “qualified agricultural property”

under MCL 211.7dd(d).

Regardless, there does not appear to be any dispute that the Property is “qualified

agricultural property” for either the 2024 or 2025 tax year as Respondent exempted the property

as Qualified Agricultural Property both before and after Petitioner’s purchase.6

6 Exhibits P-1 and P-3.

Page 5

II.

Because the Subject Property was “qualified agricultural property” prior to

Petitioners’ purchase, the purchase was not a “transfer of ownership” under MCL

211.27a(7)(o).

Pursuant to MCL 211.27a(7)(o), a transfer of ownership does not include:

[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 . . . attesting that the

qualified agricultural property will remain qualified agricultural

property.

According to the plain language of Section 27a, there are two requirements for a transfer to be

exempt from uncapping: (1) the property be “qualified agricultural property,” and (2) the transferee

files the requisite affidavit attesting that the property will remain qualified agricultural property.

MCL 211.27a(7)(o). MCL 211.27a(7)(o) contains no requirement that property have been

“qualified agricultural property” in every year since 1999 in order to be exempt from uncapping.

Here, there is no dispute that the Subject Property was “qualified agricultural property”

prior to Petitioner’s purchase. The Property was classified as agricultural, thereby meeting the

statutory definition of “qualified agricultural property.” MCL 211.7dd(d). Further, the Property

was actually receiving the QAE prior to Petitioner’s purchase.7 Upon purchase, Petitioners filed

the statutorily required affidavits attesting that the Property will remain qualified agricultural

property with Respondent.8 Following the purchase, Respondent continued to exempt the Property

as “qualified agricultural property” in 2025.9 Therefore, Petitioner’s purchase was not a “transfer

of ownership” pursuant to MCL 211.27a(7)(o) and Respondent’s 2025 uncapping violates MCL

211.27a(2).

7 Exhibit P-1.

8 Exhibit P-2.

9 Exhibit P-3.

Page 6

6 

 

 

To Respondent, the transfer of “qualified agricultural property” where the transferee files 

the requisite attesting affidavit is a transfer of ownership if the property did not have an agricultural 

operation in every year since 1999.10 Respondent’s interpretation impermissibly adds an additional 

requirement to MCL 211.27a(7)(o) that is not present in the statute. People v Zujko, 282 Mich 

App 520, 523; 765 NW2d 897 (2008). Courts must not inject additional requirements into a statute 

that the Legislature has not included. Polkton Charter Township v Pellegrom, 265 Mich App 88, 

103; 693 NW2d 170 (2005). Respondent’s additional requirement lacks any grounding in statute 

or case law and is directly contrary to the plain language of MCL 211.7dd(d), MCL 211.7ee, and 

MCL 211.27a(7)(o). Neither the statute defining “qualified agricultural property”11 nor the 

relevant transfer of ownership statute12 contain any requirement that an agricultural operation exist 

in every year since 1999 for MCL 211.27a(7)(o) to apply. 

 

In addition to violating the plain language of MCL 211.27a(7)(o), Respondent’s 

interpretation results in precisely the same harm that the Legislature sought to avoid when it 

enacted MCL 211.27a(7)(o), which was a product of Public Act 260 of 2000 (“PA 260”). Prior to 

the adoption of PA 260, the taxable value of agricultural property was uncapped upon a transfer. 

This resulted in a sharp property tax increase for farmers, as noted in the Senate Fiscal Agency’s 

Bill Analysis of SB 709 and 1246 (which would become PA 260 and PA 261 of 2000): 

It has been pointed out that this increase in property taxes can be 

particularly burdensome to those purchasing farm property, because 

such sales usually involve substantial tracts of valuable land. 

Exhibit P-10. 

 

10 See, P-8, Respondent’s Answer. 

11 MCL 211.7dd(d). 

12 MCL 211.27a(7)(o).

Page 7

This tax increase concerned the Legislature, in part because a report by the Senate

Agriculture Preservation Task Force concluded that “the farm sector is in the worst condition it

has been in since the mid-1980s; prices for many commodities are as low as they have been in

decades; few young people are entering agriculture; and economic pressures on farmers … are

causing agricultural resources, including land, to be removed from farm production.”13 The report

recommended that, “the assessment on transferred agricultural property should remain capped if

the new owner keeps the property in agricultural use, encouraging new farmers and limiting the

conversion of farmland to other uses.” Id. (emphasis added).

The Bill Analysis further explained the impact on farmers:

Since the 1994 passage of Proposal A, which created a new State school

funding system, there has been an assessment cap that limits a parcel's

annual assessment increase to the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is less.

The assessment cap has led to substantial differences between the taxable

value of farmland and its SEV (based on market value). While this has kept

taxes lower than they otherwise would be, the cap is lifted when property is

transferred. This means that if a young farmer wants to purchase a farm

from a retiring farmer, the assessed value of the property - - and the taxes

on it - - will "pop up" upon transfer of the land.

By ensuring that, when transferred, farm property will continue to be

assessed based upon its capped value rather than its open-market value,

Senate Bill 709 will prevent farmers' property taxes from rising

dramatically, and thus will increase the farmers' chances of remaining

profitable.

. . .

The State should take steps to ensure that agriculture remains a vital part of

Michigan's economy, and to do that the State must do what it can to help

farmers. By implementing one of several recommendations made by the

Task Force to provide substantial tax relief to farmers, Senate Bill 709 will

help to keep farmland as farmland.

Exhibit P-10. As a result, as long as qualified agricultural property remains qualified agricultural

property, there is no transfer of ownership and, therefore, no uncapping.

13 Exhibit P-10.

Page 8

8 

 

Conclusion 

 

The General Property Tax Act’s statutory scheme for the uncapping of qualified 

agricultural property is clear. Transfers of “qualified agricultural property” where a transferee files 

the requisite affidavits attesting that the property will remain “qualified agricultural property,” are 

not transfers of ownership under MCL 211.27a(7)(o). 

 

Here, Mendon Township classified the Subject Property parcels as agricultural for both tax 

years 2024 and 2025 and exempted the Subject Property parcels as qualified agricultural property 

for both years. When Petitioners purchased the Subject Property, they filed the affidavits required 

by MCL 211.27a(7)(o) attesting that the property was, and will remain, “qualified agricultural 

property.” Petitioners’ purchase was not a transfer of ownership and Respondent’s uncapping was 

contrary to the plain language of MCL 211.27a(7)(o). 

 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully request that this Tribunal: (1) reverse Respondent’s 

uncapping of the Subject Property’s taxable values and recalculate the 2025 taxable values to the 

2024 taxable values plus the applicable rate of inflation; and (2) grant any other relief that the 

Tribunal deems fair, just and equitable. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: November 14, 2025 

 

By: 

__________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

89494:00001:202141846-1

Page 9

P-1

Page 10

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P1-001

Michvgan Depa

1010 Rev, 11

)

THIS

IS NOT A TAX BILL

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P1-001

L-4400

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification

Thus Foon is issued undor the authority of P A. 206 of 1893, Sec, 211 24 ic) and Sex 211 346, as amended

This is & modal a:

ment nolice i bis used by thi neal assessor

FROM LIUTSON ASSESSING INC

60450 FARRAND RD.

COLON. MI 49040

TEMP- RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION

PARCEL NUMBER:

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

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

TUTTI

IT EAE

AT UB

UT TE

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence":

00%

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personal":

00%

% Exempt As "MBT Commercial Personal”:

00%

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property":

0 Yes

Exempt As “Development Property”:

[7] Yes

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

E 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 5E 1/4 5EC 16 T58 R1GW. § A+/-. PA 116 25 YRS 1980-2004 L-348 P-211.

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS:

102

(AGRICULTURAL-VACANT)

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION:

102 (AGRICULTURAL-VACANT)

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bil for the 2024

PRIOR AMOUNT

CURRENT

CHANGE FROM

ysar by epproxinalsly

YEAR.

2023

YEAR Oe

CURRENT YEAR

1. TAXABLE VALUE:

2.453

2,575

122

2. ASSESSED VALUE:

7.000

9,200

2,200

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR:

1,000

latte gh

Rel

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV):

7,000

9.200

2.200

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in2023

WAS NOT

Proposal A 1994:

Taxable value will be adjusted by the rate of inflation, but no more than 5%, note multiplier below 1.05.

The inflation rate is 5.1% but 1994 proposal A caps the increase at 5% statewide.

If there was new

construction in 2023 the value will be added to assessed and taxable.

If a transfer of ownership

occurred in 2023 the assessed and taxable value will be identical due to uncapping.

If neither new

construction or a transfer occurred the taxable will follow the 5% cap. Assessed value follows current

markel changes.

The 2024 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.05

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

Email Address

DALEHUTSON@CHARTERMINET

Phane

(269) 432-2834

Name.

DALE HUTSON

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

MENDON BOARD OF REVIEW APPOINTMENT ONLY! CALL 269.432.2834 FOR AN APPOINTMENT NO LATER THAN 4 PM

FRIDAY MARCH 8. BOARD OF REVIEW WILL MEET AT THE CROSSROADS MISSIONARY CHURCH AT 22605 M-60 MONDAY

MARCH 11 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30 & TUESDAY MARCH 12 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30. APPEALS MAY BE MADE BY LETTER AND

MUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 PM FRIDAY MARCH 8 AT DALE HUTSON, ASSESSOR, 60450 FARRAND RD.. COLON, MI 43040.

YOU MUST PROVIDE FOUR COPIES OF ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD

NO EMAILED OR FAXED PROTESTS ACCEPTED.

Assessing

Tax information available online

at:

BSAonline.com

Page 11

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P1-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P1-002

Cua amy

THIS

IS NOT A TAX BILL

L-4400

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification

PEt

This torm is 1ssund under the authority of P A. 206 of 1893, Sec. 211.24 (t) and Sec.211.34¢, as amended

This is 2 model assessment nulics 10 be used by the lacat assessor

FROM. JUTSON ASSESSING INC

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION

60450 FARRAND RD.

COLON, MI 49040

PARCEL NUMBER

75010 016 013 00

TEMP- RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

PROPERTY ADDRESS.

OWNERS NAME & ADDRESSIPERSON

NAMED ON ASSESSMENT RO

ERSMENT

ROE

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence”:

00%

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personal”:

00%

tii bpdedsf pated payed opt fad]

Y% Exempt As “"MBT Commercial Personal”:

00%

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property”:

O0 Yes

Exempt As "Development Property”:

[7] Yes

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

W 1/2 SC 144 NE 1/4 SC 1/4 SEC 16 755 R10W. § At/-. PA 116 25 YRS 1880-2004 L-848 P-211.

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill for the 2024

PRIOR AMOUNT

CURRENT

CHANGE FROM

year by approximately:

YEAR

2023

YEAR Ee

CURRENT YEAR

1. TAXABLE VALUE:

2.453

2,575

122

2. ASSESSED VALUE:

7,000

9.200

2,200

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR:

1.000

Sail

ee CS

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV):

7.000

9,200

2.200

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in2023

WAS NOT

Proposal A 1994:

Taxable value will be adjusted by the rate of inflation, but no more than 5%, note multiplier below 1.05.

The inflation rate is 5.1% but 1994 proposal A caps the increase at 5% statewide.

If there was new

construction in 2023 the value will be added to assessed and taxable.

If a transfer of ownership

occurred in 2023 the assessed and taxable value will be identical due to uncapping.

If neither new

construction or a transfer occurred the taxable will follow the 5% cap. Assessed value follows current

market changes.

The 2024 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.05

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

Name:

Phone

Email Address

DALE HUTSON

(269) 432-2834

DALEHUTSON@CHARTERMINET

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

MENDON BOARD OF REVIEW APPOINTMENT ONLY! CALL 269.432.2834 FOR AN APPOINTMENT NO LATER THAN 4 PM

FRIDAY MARCH 8. BOARD OF REVIEW WILL MEET AT THE CROSSROADS MISSIONARY CHURCH AT 22605 M-60 MONDAY

MARCH 11 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30 & TUESDAY MARCH 12 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30. APPEALS MAY BE MADE BY LETTER AND

MUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 PM FRIDAY MARCH 8 AT DALE HUTSON, ASSESSOR, 60450 FARRAND RD., COLON, MI 49040

YOU MUST PROVIDE FOUR COPIES OF ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.

NO EMAILED OR FAXED PROTESTS ACCEPTED

Assessing

Tax information available online

at:

BSAonline.com

Page 12

P-2

Page 13

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P2-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P2-001 

DOCUMENT 

# 2024004135 

ARRIVAL: 06/05/2024 09:54:33 AM 

RECORDED: 

06/05/2024 09:54:41 AM 

DOCTYPE: 

A@6 PAGES: 

2 

Hutson Assessing Inc. 

JUN 1 02024 

FILED FOR RECORD IN 

: 

ST 

JOSEPH COUNTY MICHIGAN 

Received 

LINDSAY OSWALD, 

REGISTER 

OF 

DEEDS 

EE 

a 

Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural Property 

1. Street Address of Property 

2. Name of County 

St. Joseph 

3. City/Township/Village Where Real Estate is Located 

Mendon Ep 

[Il City 

Township 

[H| Village 

4. Name of Property Owner(s) (Print or Type Legibly) 

5. Property ID Number (from Tax Bill or Assessment Notice) 

Dustin L. Cupp and Christina L. Cupp 

75-010-016-012-00 

6. Legal Description (Legal description is required; attach additional sheets if 

7. Percentage of this properly that is, and will remain Qualified Agricultural Property 

necessary) 

(Do Not Include Qualified Farest Program Property) 

See Exhibit A 

100% 

8. Daylime Telephone Number 

9. E-mail Address 

Partial transfer under MCL 211.27a(6)(K)? See Page 2 

(269) 651-4880 

Ithorntonlaw@gmail.com 

J Yes 

No 

CERTIFICATION & NOTARIZATION (Notarization necessary for recording with Register of Deeds) 

| certify that the information above is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 

| further certify that the property noted on this affidavit 

currently is, and will remain, qualified agricultural property. Must 

be signed 

by-owner, 

partner, corporate officer, or a duly authorized agent. 

Dated: June 3 

,20.24 

Signed 

NIRS 

Name (Printed or Type) Dustifl L. Cupp 

Title Owner 

Dated: June 3 

,2024 

signed (hance 

Z 1. 

Name (Printed or Type) Christina L! ffm 

Title Owner 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

) 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF 

ST. JOSEPH 

) 

On this 

_3rd 

day of 

June 

, 20.24 

the above-named person(s) Dustin L. Cupp & Christina L. Cupp 

.each personally appeared before me. Each acknowledged that the persons’ execution of this affidavit was that 

person's free act and deed and affirmed that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of that person's information, knowledge 

and belief. 

ite (FE 7 

BRINT/TYPE NAME: Lance L. Thornton 

NOTARY PUBLIC, 

St. Joseph 

County, Michigan 

Acting in 

St. Joseph 

County 

(NOTARY SEAL) 

My commission expires: 06/21/2030 

Drafters Name __ Lance . Thorton 

. Ale 

ho rire 

Drafter's Address 

_(s 3.260 

Abn ihesrse 

JAC » 

Sie i wi AT 

Eh] 

FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY AFTER THE INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS 

Is the percentage stated above in number 7 the current percentage of the property that is Qualified 

Agricultural Property? 

£ 

OJ Yes 

No 

If NO, what is the correct percentage 

of the propery that is currently Qualified Agricultural Property? 

= LO % 

Assessor's Signature A 

Date 

7 

% 

= 

Co 

[2 

Z= > 

24) 20Z¢

Page 14

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P2-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P2-002 

EXHIBIT A —FORM 3676 

6. Legal description: 

The East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, 

Township 5 South, Range 10 West. 

Tax ID# 75-010-016-012-00 

Hutson Assessing Inc. 

JUN 102024 

Received

Page 15

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P2-003

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P2-003

DOCUMENT

# 2024004131

Hutson Assessing Inc.

ARRIVAL: 06/05/2024 09:54:33 AM

RECORDED:

06/05/2024 09:54:37

DOCTYPE:

A@6 PAGES:

JUN 1 0 0

FILED

FOR RECORD

ST JOSEPH COUNTY MICHIGAN

Received

LINDSAY OSWALD, REGISTER OF DEEDS

Michigan Department of Treasury

This form is issued under authority of P.A. 260

3676 (Rev. 12-18)

2000 and PA. 378 of 2006, Filing Is vido.

Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural Property

1. Street Address of Property

2. Name of County

St. Joseph

3. City/Township/Village Where Real Estale is Located

Mendon Township

OJ City

Township

OJ Village

4. Name of Property Owner(s) (Print or Type Legibly)

5. Property ID Number (from Tax Bill

or Assessment Notice)

Dustin L. Cupp and Christina L. Cupp

75-010-016-013-00

6. Legal Description (Legal description is required; attach additional sheets il

7. Percentage of this property that is, and will remain Qualified Agricultural Property

necessary)

(Do Not Include Qualified Forest Program Property)

See Exhibit A

100%

8. Daylime Telephone Number

9. E-mail Address

Partial transfer under MCL 211.27a(6)(K)? See Page 2

(269) 651-4880

Ithorntonlaw@gmail.com

[] Yes

CERTIFICATION & NOTARIZATION (Notarization necessary for recording with Register of Deeds)

| certify that the information above is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.

| further certify that the property noted on this affidavit

currently is, and will remain, qualified agricultural property. Must be signed

gwner, partner, corporate officer, or a duly authorized agent.

Dated: June 3

,2024

Signed

RNNES

Name pa

or Type) Dustin'tY Cupp

Title Owner

Dated: June 3

,20.24

Signed IZ

£4 Srl a

(lion

Name (Printed or Type) Christina L. Cupp

Title Owner

STATE OF MICHIGAN

~~)

) ss.

COUNTY OF

ST. JOSEPH

)

Onthis

_3rd

day of

June

20.24

the above-named person(s) Dustin L. Cupp & Christina L. Cupp

.each personally appeared before me. Each acknowledged that the persons’ execution of this affidavit was that

person's free act and deed and affirmed that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of that person's information, knowledge

and belief.

, a

ie Zn

BRINTTYPE NAME: Lance L. Thornton

NOTARY PUBLIC,

St. Joseph

County, Michigan

Acting in

St. Joseph

County

(NOTARY SEAL)

My commission expires: 06/21/2030

Drafter's Name

_fvesicr L.

Thesrsdea »

litter

ees

Drafter's Address __(» A262 Adoftrc.ien

RA, Gi writs, ML 490%,

FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY AFTER THE INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

Is the percentage stated above in number 7 the current percentage of the property that is Qualified

0 Yes TNo

Agricultural Property?

2207

If NO, what is the corgec{percentage of the

y that is currently Qualified Agricultural Property?

SES

Date

7/24) ze zy

Page 16

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P2-004

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P2-004 

EXHIBIT A — FORM 3676 

6. Legal description: 

The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, 

Township 5 South, Range 10 West. 

Tax ID# 75-010-016-013-00

Page 17

P-3

Page 18

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P3-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

P3001 L-4400 

1019 (Rev, 10-24) 

7786 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, 

Sec. 211.24 

(c) and Sec.211.34c, 

as amended. This is a model assessment notice to be used by the local assessor. 

FROM: HUTSON ASSESSING INC 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

60450 FARRAND RD. 

PAR 

: 

COLON, MI 49040 

CEL NUMBER 

75010 016 013 00 

TEMP- RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

) 

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

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

Li 

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence": 

00% 

++4t+es ey AUTO**5-DIGIT 49011 

% Exempt As "Qualified Agricultural Property”: 

100.00% 

ees Goose CHRISIINACL 

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personal": 

00% 

MENDON, 

MI 49072-9712 

% Exempt 

As "MBT Commercial Personal”: 

00% 

IL CELERY LE YE 

PLE RRR 

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property”: ~~ [] Yes 

[X] No 

Exempt As "Development Property": 

[Yes 

[X] No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

W 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC 16 T5S R10W. 5 A+/-. PA 116 25 YRS 1980-2004 L-848 P-211. 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

102 

Agricultural 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 

102 

Agricultural 

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill for the 2025 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

year by approximately: 

$214 

Aly col 

AMOUNT YEAR: 0 

BEA 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

2.575 

9,200 

6,625 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

9,200 

9,200 

0 

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

= 

= 

g 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

9,200 

9,200 

0 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in 2024 

WAS 

In 1994, Proposal A was introduced, which set a 5% cap on the increase to Taxable Value. This cap applies statewide and 

aims to control the impact of rising property values on taxpayers. The State determined the inflation rate is 3.1% for 2025 

year. This means the prior year's taxable value should be multiplied by a factor of 1.031 for your current taxable value. 

If 

there was new construction in 2024 the value will be added to assessed and taxable. If a transfer of ownership occurred in 

2024 the assessed and taxable value will be identical due to uncapping. If neither new construction or a transfer occurred the 

taxable will follow the 3.1% cap. Assessed value is influenced by market changes. 

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031 

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

Name: 

Phone: 

Email Address: 

DALE HUTSON 

(269) 432-2834 

DALEHUTSON@CHARTERMI.NET 

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

MENDON BOARD OF REVIEW APPOINTMENT ONLY! CALL 269.432.2834 FOR AN APPOINTMENT NO LATER THAN 4 PM 

FRIDAY 

MARCH 7. BOARD OF REVIEW WILL MEET AT THE MENDON TWP. HALL, 136 W. MAIN ST. MONDAY MARCH 10 FROM 1:30 PM 

TO 7:30 & TUESDAY MARCH 11 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30. APPEALS MAY BE MADE BY MAIL AND MUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 PM 

FRIDAY MARCH 7 AT DALE HUTSON, ASSESSOR, 60450 FARRAND RD., COLON, MI 49040. 

YOU MUST PROVIDE FOUR 

COPIES OF ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. 

NO EMAILED OR FAXED PROTESTS ACCEPTED. 

ASSESSING & TAX INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: BSAONLINE.COM

Page 19

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P3-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

chloun Dopectnerk of Trees, 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

P3.002 L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

ms 

This form 

is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, Sec. 211.24 (c) and Sec.211.34c, as amended. This is a model assessment notice to be used by the local assessor. 

FROM: HUTSON ASSESSING INC 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

60450 FARRAND RD. 

, 

COLON. MI 49040 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

75010 016 012 00 

TEMP- RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON 

N, 

'D ON ASSESSMI 

LL 

cubes 

SESSMENT ROL 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

ms 

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence”: 

.00% 

*#evsess 

AUTO *5-DIGIT 49011 

% Exempt As "Qualified Agricultural Property": 

100.00% 

Ee. DUTTIN Lg (CIRISTINALL 

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personal”: 

00% 

MENDON, 

MI 49072-9712 

% Exempt As "MBT Commercial Personal”: 

.00% 

(TE TTET ECE CB PTTL 

[RE FTF TT EER 

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property”: ~~ [| Yes 

[X] No 

Exempt As "Development Property”: 

[J Yes 

[X] No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

E 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC 16 T5S R10W. 5 A+/-. PA 116 25 YRS 1980-2004 L-848 P-211. 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

102 

Agricultural 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 

102 

Agricultural 

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill for the 2025 

PRIOR AMOU 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

yesr.by approximately: 

$214 

YEAR: 

2024 oo 

AMOUNTXENR. aos 

CORRENT YEAR 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

2,575 

9,200 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

9,200 

9,200 

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

EE 2 

: 

= 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

9,200 

9,200 

0 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in2024 

WAS 

In 1994, Proposal A was introduced, which set a 5% cap on the increase to Taxable Value. This cap applies statewide and 

aims to control the impact of rising property values on taxpayers. The State determined the inflation rate is 3.1% for 2025 

year. This means the prior year's taxable value should be multiplied by a factor of 1.031 for your current taxable value. 

If 

there was new construction in 2024 the value will be added to assessed and taxable. If a transfer of ownership occurred in 

2024 the assessed and taxable value will be identical due to uncapping. If neither new construction or a transfer occurred the 

taxable will follow the 3.1% cap. Assessed value is influenced by market changes. 

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031 

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

Name: 

Phone: 

Email Address: 

DALE HUTSON 

(269) 432-2834 

DALEHUTSON@CHARTERMI.NET 

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

MENDON BOARD OF REVIEW APPOINTMENT ONLY! CALL 269.432.2834 FOR AN APPOINTMENT NO LATER THAN 4 PM 

FRIDAY 

MARCH 7. BOARD OF REVIEW WILL MEET AT THE MENDON TWP. HALL, 136 W. MAIN ST. MONDAY MARCH 10 FROM 1:30 PM 

TO 7:30 & TUESDAY MARCH 11 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30. APPEALS MAY BE MADE BY MAIL AND MUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 PM 

FRIDAY MARCH 7 AT DALE HUTSON, ASSESSOR, 60450 FARRAND RD., COLON, MI 49040. 

YOU MUST PROVIDE FOUR 

COPIES OF ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. 

NO EMAILED OR FAXED PROTESTS ACCEPTED. 

ASSESSING & TAX INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: BSAONLINE.COM

Page 20

P-4

Page 21

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-001

Siehigan Oepygent of Treasury

Petition to Board of Review

L-4035

This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary, however you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal

or the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review.

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type)

Petitioner's Name (If Other than Owner. Please Print or Type)

Dustin L. Cupp & Christina L. Cupp

Township or City

County

Mendon Township

St. Joseph

The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified

agricultural property exemption of the following described property:

Property Identified (Parcel code required. Property address & legal description optional)

75-010-016-012-00

Protested Item

[| Assessed Value

[X] Tentative Taxable Value

[J Classification

[x] Qualified Agricultural

Property

Exemption

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT

perty

Exemp

(Complete this section for a protest of assessed value and/or tentative taxable value)

Assessed Amount

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Year

$9,200

$2,654

2025

2. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION

(Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in

accordance with Section 211.34¢ of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular

classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.)

Classification of property on this year's assessment roll

Classification should be (check one of the following):

[J Agricuttural

[J industrial

[J Timber Cutover

[7] utility (Personal Property Only)

O Commercial

O Residential

O Developmental

3. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY

(If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operating tax for qualified agricultural

property, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER OR ACT

UPON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption

Percent qualified agricultural exemption requested by owner (Enter 100 if full

denied)

‘exemption requested)

4. REASON FOR PROTEST

State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or classification and/or qualified agricultural property exemption

Impermissible uncapping of taxable value because no “transfer of ownership” occurred in 2024 pursuant to MCL

211.27a(7)(0). For additional explanation, see the attached Reason for Protest.

CERTIFICATION

Signature

Date

Address

Phone Number

www.michigan.govi/treasury

Page 22

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-002

Form 618, Page 2

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes.

Petition Number

Parcel Code

1. ASSESSED VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must Smo ro seasonforis actonselon—

[J Denied

["] Assessed Value Changed From

to]

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [] Yes [No —ee

Member: [] Yes

[| No

Member: [] Yes []No

Initials

Reason for board action

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48809. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal,

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and Agricultura)

Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be fited on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax

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

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

[J Denied

[] Tentative Taxable Value Changed From

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [_] Yes

[_] No

Member: [Yes []No

Member:

Yes

Initials

Reason for board action

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal,

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricuitural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and

Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the

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

3. CLASSIFICATION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

[J Denied

[7] Classification Changed From

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [_] Yes

[| No

Reason for board action

Member: [J Yes []No

Member: [_] Yes []No

Initials

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commission

at P.O. Box 30471, Lansing, MI 48909 by June 30.

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

[CJ Exemption Request Denied

[T] Exemption percent modified from

% to

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [_] Yes

[| No

Reason for board action

Member: [_] Yes

[| No

Member: [] Yes [No

Initials

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, Mi 48309 by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form

approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at ‘www.michigan.govi/taxtrib.

5. ADJOURNMENT

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review

Board of Review Secretary Signature

Date

Page 23

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-003

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-003

ATTACHMENT TO MARCH BOARD OF REVIEW PETITION

Property Parcel No.: 75-010-016-012-00

Property Owner: Dustin and Christina Cupp

Reason for Protest: Uncapping of Taxable Value of Qualified Agricultural Property

Explanation of Reason for Protest (Section 4 of Board of Review Petition Form)

For tax year 2024, the above-referenced property (the “Property”) was classified as

Agricultural Vacant and were 100% exempt as Qualified Agricultural Property. On June 3, 2024,

Dustin and Christina Cupp purchased the Property. Dustin and Christina Cupp signed and filed

Form

3676, Affidavit Attesting

Qualified Agricultural

Property

Shall

Remain

Qualified

Agricultural Property attesting that 100% of the Property was and will remain Qualified

Agricultural Property. See Affidavit attached as Exhibit A.

According to the 2025 Notice of Assessment for the Property, which is attached as Exhibit

B, the Property continues to receive the Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption. Thus, there

does not appear to be any dispute that the Property is eligible for, and was actually receiving, the

Qualified Agricultural Exemption both before and after Mr. and Mrs. Cupp acquired the Property.

Nevertheless, the Township has “uncapped” the taxable value of the Property for the 2025 tax year,

which is contrary to Michigan law.

Generally, Michigan law provides that a property’s taxable value may increase from the

previous year’s taxable value by the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is less, unless a “transfer

of ownership” occurs. MCL 211.27a(2)(a). “Transfer of ownership” is a defined statutory term

and the Michigan Legislature has identified several situations that do not result in a “transfer of

ownership.”

One such exception to a “transfer of ownership” applies to transfers of qualified

agricultural property so long as certain requirements are met.

MCL 211.27a(7)(0) states,

in relevant part, that the following

is not

a “transfer of

ownership”:

[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 . .

. attesting that the

qualified agricultural property will remain qualified agricultural

property.

In other words, there is no “transfer of ownership” where: (1) the property being transferred is

qualified agricultural property, and (2) the new owner files the Affidavit Attesting that Qualified

Agricultural Property Will Remain Qualified Agricultural Property. Both conditions are satisfied

for the Property.

Assessment records confirm that the Property was receiving the Qualified Agricultural

Property Exemption prior to Mr. and Mrs. Cupp’s purchase in June, 2024.

The Property was

“Qualified Agricultural Property” prior to the purchase, satisfying the first condition of MCL

Page 24

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-004

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-004

211.27a(7)(0). Mr. and Mrs. Cupp properly signed and filed the Affidavit Attesting that Qualified

Agricultural Property Will Remain Qualified Agricultural Property on June 3, 2024. See Exhibit

Furthermore, the 2025 Notice of Assessment confirms that the Property is still Qualified

Agricultural Property and that it is classified as Agricultural. See Exhibit B. For reference, MCL

211.27a is attached in its entirety as Exhibit C.

There

is no requirement in Michigan law that the property at issue must have been

Qualified Agricultural Property every year since 1999 to qualify for the uncapping exemption in

MCL 211.27a(7)(0). Rather, that statutory language applies to what is commonly referred to as a

“Qualified Agricultural Recapping,” which exists as a way to retroactively remedy an otherwise

improper uncapping of taxable value.

See MCL 211.27a(8).

This situation does not involve a

retroactive taxable value recapping, and therefore MCL 211.27a(8) is not applicable.

Because Michigan law specifically and clearly provides that a transfer of Qualified

Agricultural Property is not a transfer of ownership, the Property’s 2025 taxable value of $9,200

violates MCL 211.27a.

The Property Owners respectfully request that the March Board of Review revise the

Property’s 2025 taxable value to be consistent with the capped value formula and be set to $2,654

(2024 taxable value of $2,575 x 1.031 = $2,654).

89494:00001:201262532-1

Page 25

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P4-005

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P4-005 

Michigan Department 

of Treasury 

618 (Rev. 11-12) 

Petition to Board of Review 

L-4035 

This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary, however you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

or the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review. 

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT 

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type) 

Petitioner's Name 

(If Other than Owner. Please Print or Type) 

Dustin L. Cupp & Christina L. Cupp 

Township or City 

County 

Mendon Township 

St. Joseph 

The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified 

agricultural property exemption of the following described property: 

Property Identified (Parcel code required. Property address & legal description optional) 

75-010-016-013-00 

Protested Item 

[| ] Assessed Value 

[x] Tentative Taxable Value 

[J Classification 

[x] Qualified Agricultural 

Property 

Exemption 

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT 

party 

Exampl 

(Complete this section for a protest of assessed value and/or tentative taxable value) 

Assessed Amount 

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value 

Tentative Taxable Value 

Year 

$9,200 

$2,654 

2025 

2. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION 

(Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in 

accordance with Section 211.34c of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular 

classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.) 

Classification of property on this year's assessment roll 

Classification 

should be (check one of the fo 

ing): 

[ Agricultural 

[] industrial 

[] Timber Cutover 

[J utility (Personal Property Only) 

[J] commercial 

[J Residential 

[ pevelopmental 

3. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 

(If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operating tax for qualified agricultural 

property, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER OR ACT 

UPON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.) 

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption 

Percent qualified agricultural exemption requested by owner (Enter 100 if full 

denied) 

‘exemption requested) 

4. REASON FOR PROTEST 

State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or classification and/or qualified agricultural property exemption 

Impermissible uncapping of taxable value because no “transfer of ownership" occurred in 2024 pursuant to MCL 

211.27a(7)(0). For additional explanation, see the attached Reason for Protest. 

CERTIFICATION 

Signature 

Date 

Address 

Phone Number 

www.michigan.gov/treasury

Page 26

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-006

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-006

Form 618, Page 2

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes.

Petition Number

Parcel Code

1. ASSESSED VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must Smo essai setonblon—y

[J Denied

[] Assessed Value Changed From

to]

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [ | Yes

[

No —

Member: [_] Yes

[J No

nities

Member: [| Yes

[| No

Initials

Reason for board action

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48809. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal,

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and Agricultura]

Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax

Tribunal. Michigan

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

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

[J Denied

[] Tentative Taxable Value Changed From

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [| Yes [| No

Member: |

Member:

Initials

Reason for board action

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal,

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and

Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the

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

3. CLASSIFICATION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

[J Denied

[] Classification Changed From

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [J Yes [No —

~~ Member: [JYes [JNo

—_—

Member [JYes [No or

Reason for board action

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commission

at P.O. Box 30471, Lansing, MI 48909 by June 30.

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

[J Exemption Request Denied

[] Exemption percent modified from

% to

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Chairperson: [_] Yes

[| No

Reason for board action

Member: [] Yes []No

Member: []Yes [No

Initials

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48309 by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form

approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

5. ADJOURNMENT

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review

Board of Review Secretary Signature

Date

Page 27

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-007

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-007

ATTACHMENT TO MARCH BOARD OF REVIEW PETITION

Property Parcel No.: 75-010-016-013-00

Property Owner: Dustin and Christina Cupp

Reason for Protest: Uncapping of Taxable Value of Qualified Agricultural Property

Explanation of Reason for Protest (Section 4 of Board of Review Petition Form)

For tax year 2024, the above-referenced property (the “Property”) was classified as

Agricultural Vacant and were 100% exempt as Qualified Agricultural Property. On June 3, 2024,

Dustin and Christina Cupp purchased the Property. Dustin and Christina Cupp signed and filed

Form

3676, Affidavit Attesting

Qualified Agricultural

Property

Shall

Remain

Qualified

Agricultural Property attesting that 100% of the Property was and will remain Qualified

Agricultural Property. See Affidavit attached as Exhibit A.

According to the 2025 Notice of Assessment for the Property, which is attached as Exhibit

B, the Property continues to receive the Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption. Thus, there

does not appear to be any dispute that the Property is eligible for, and was actually receiving, the

Qualified Agricultural Exemption both before and after Mr. and Mrs. Cupp acquired the Property.

Nevertheless, the Township has “uncapped” the taxable value of the Property for the 2025 tax year,

which is contrary to established Michigan law.

Generally, Michigan law provides that a property’s taxable value may increase from the

previous year’s taxable value by the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is less, unless a “transfer

of ownership” occurs. MCL 211.27a(2)(a).

“Transfer of ownership” is a defined statutory term

and the Michigan Legislature has identified several situations that do not result in a “transfer of

ownership.”

One such exception to a “transfer of ownership” applies to transfers of qualified

agricultural property so long as certain requirements are met.

MCL 211.27a(7)(o) states,

in relevant part, that the following

is not

a “transfer of

ownership”:

[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 . .

. attesting that the

qualified agricultural property will remain qualified agricultural

property.

In other words, there is no “transfer of ownership” where: (1) the property being transferred is

qualified agricultural property, and (2) the new owner files the Affidavit Attesting that Qualified

Agricultural Property Will Remain Qualified Agricultural Property. Both conditions are satisfied

for the Property.

Assessment records confirm that the Property was receiving the Qualified Agricultural

Property Exemption prior to Mr. and Mrs. Cupp’s purchase in June, 2024.

The Property was

“Qualified Agricultural Property” prior to the purchase, satisfying the first condition of MCL

Page 28

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-008

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P4-008

211.27a(7)(0). Mr. and Mrs. Cupp properly signed and filed the Affidavit Attesting that Qualified

Agricultural Property Will Remain Qualified Agricultural Property on June 3, 2024. See Exhibit

Furthermore, the 2025 Notice of Assessment confirms that the Property is still Qualified

Agricultural Property and that it is classified as Agricultural. See Exhibit B. For reference, MCL

211.27a is attached in its entirety as Exhibit C.

There is no requirement in Michigan law that the property at issue must have been

Qualified Agricultural Property every year since 1999 to qualify for the uncapping exemption in

MCL 211.27a(7)(0). Rather, that statutory language applies to what is commonly referred to as a

“Qualified Agricultural Recapping,” which exists as a way to retroactively remedy an otherwise

improper uncapping of taxable value.

See MCL 211.27a(8).

This situation does not involve a

retroactive taxable value recapping, and therefore MCL 211.27a(8) is not applicable.

Because Michigan law specifically and clearly provides that

a transfer of Qualified

Agricultural Property is not a transfer of ownership, the Property’s 2025 taxable value of $9,200

violates MCL 211.27a.

The Property Owners respectfully request that the March Board of Review revise the

Property’s 2025 taxable value to be consistent with the capped value formula and be set to $2,654

(2024 taxable value of $2,575 x 1.031 = $2,654).

89494:00001:201262519-1

Page 29

P-5

Page 30

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-001

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

ORLENE HAWKS

GOVERNOR

LANSING

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-002958

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax

disputes.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (c.g. Board of Review

Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual

First Name

MIL

Last Name/Company Name

Dustin & Christina

Cupp

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

51665 Osgood Road

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Mendon

Michigan

49072

Telephone Number

Fax Number

2695060875

E-mail Address

cuppzocy@aol.com

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Last Name

Tom

Dillon

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

1700 E Beltline NE, Ste 200

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Grand Rapids

Michigan

49525

Telephone Number

Fax Number

616-726-2258

E-mail Address

illon@fosterswift.com

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

Ifyou are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? Yes

*If no, you must file scparate appeals for cach non-contiguous or non-adjoining parccl.

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) {If multiple, list first property's address]

Page 31

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-002 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Michigan 

Taxing Authority (City or Township) 

County 

Township Of Mendon (SAINT JOSEPH) 

Saint Joseph 

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that apply) 

Uncapping of Taxable Value 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

See Attachment A to Petition. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2025 

Did you protest the assessment al a Board of Review (BOR)? Yes 

If Yes, check which BOR you 

ded AND 

upload 

the BOR 

decision: March 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

O Mach 

© July 

© December 

If No, explain why: 

Section 7: Valuation Information «use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels, 

Parcel Identification Number: 75-010-016-012-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Agricultural

Page 32

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-003

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-003

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

ORLENE HAWKS

GOVERNOR

LANSING

DIRECTOR

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Valuc) as established by the BOR:

9200

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

9200

‘What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)?

18400

Multiply the Truc Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Valuc (also known as State Equalized Value).

9200

If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

2654

Parcel Identification Number: 75-010-016-013-00

Classification of Property:

Real

Agricultural

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR:

9200

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

9200

‘What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)?

18400

Multiply the Truc Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

9200

1f you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

2654

Section 8: Classification Information +only ihe Mi Dep't of Treasury may appeal this issuc to the Tribunal®

Parcel Identification Number:

75-010-009-018-20

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review:

‘What do you believe is the property's classification?

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Page 33

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-004

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-004

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

ORLENE HAWKS

GOVERNOR

LANSING

DIRECTOR

Fee Information

Docs the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

Arc you appealing ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption?

If you answered yes to cither or both of these questions, you are not required to pay any filing fees.

The filing fee is based on the greater of the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention.

If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the

highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for cach additional parcel being

appealed, not to exceed a total filing fee of $1,000.

If your property is residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is:

Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under

$125.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00

$200.00

$Over $500,000.00

$300.00

If your property is NOT residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is:

Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under

$250.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as indicated above.

If your property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is $160,000.01 or greater the appeal does not qualify for

Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed.

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Petitioner or Attomey/Authorized Representative's Signature:

/s/ Thomas K. Dillon

Page 34

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-005

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-005

ATTACHMENT A

Section 5. Reason for Appeal

Property Parcel Nos.: 75-010-016-012-00 & 75-010-016-013-00

Reason for Appeal: Uncapping of Taxable Value of Qualified Agricultural Property

For tax years 2024 and 2025, Property Parcel Nos. 75-010-016-012-00 and 75-010-016-

013-00 (together, the “Properties” or “Subject Properties”), were classified as Agricultural and

were receiving the Qualified Agricultural Property Exemption (“QAE”).

On June 3, 2024, the Petitioners purchased the Subject Properties. Dustin and Christina

Cupp signed and filed Form 3676, Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall

Remain Qualified Agricultural Property attesting that 100% of the Property was and will remain

Qualified Agricultural Property. See Affidavit attached as Exhibit 1.

According to the 2025 Notices of Assessment for the Properties, which are attached as

Exhibit 2, the Properties continue to receive the QAE in 2025. Thus, there does not appear to be

any dispute that the Properties are eligible for, and were actually receiving, the QAE both before

and after Mr. and Mrs. Cupp acquired the Properties. Nevertheless, the Township has “uncapped”

the taxable value of the Subject Properties for the 2025 tax year, contrary to Michigan law.

MCL 211.27a(2)(a) provides that a property’s taxable value may increase from the previous

year’s taxable value by the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever

is less, unless

a “transfer of

ownership” occurs.

“Transfer of ownership”

is a defined statutory term and the Michigan

Legislature has identified several situations that do not result in a “transfer of ownership.” One

such exception to a “transfer of ownership” applies to transfers of qualified agricultural property

so long as certain requirements are met.

MCL 211.27a(7)(0) states,

in relevant part, that the following

is not

a “transfer of

ownership”:

[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 .

. attesting that the

qualified agricultural property will remain qualified agricultural

property.

In other words, there is no “transfer of ownership” where: (1) the property being transferred is

qualified agricultural property, and (2) the new owner files the Affidavit Attesting that Qualified

Agricultural Property Will Remain Qualified Agricultural Property. Both conditions are satisfied

for the Subject Properties.

Assessment records confirm that the Properties were receiving the QAE prior to Mr. and

Mrs. Cupp’s purchase in June, 2024. The Properties were “qualified agricultural property” prior

Page 35

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-006

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-006 

to the purchase, satisfying the first condition of MCL 211.27a(7)(0). Mr. and Mrs. Cupp properly 

signed and filed the Affidavit Attesting that Qualified Agricultural Property Will Remain Qualified 

Agricultural Property on June 

3, 2024. 

See Exhibit 

1. 

Furthermore, the 2025 Notices of 

Assessment confirm that the Properties are still “qualified agricultural property” and are classified 

as Agricultural. See Exhibit 2. 

Because MCL 211.27a(7)(o) specifically provides that a transfer of qualified agricultural 

property is not a transfer of ownership, the Properties’ 2025 taxable values of $9,200 violate MCL 

211.27a2)(a). 

Petitioners respectfully request that the Tribunal revise the Subject Properties’ 2025 taxable 

values to be compliant with MCL 211.27a(2)(a) and 211.27a(7)(o) as follows: 

75-010-016-012-00: $2,654 (2024 taxable value of $2,575 x 1.031 = $2,654). 

75-010-016-013-00: $2,654 (2024 taxable value of $2,575 x 1.031 = $2,654).

Page 36

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-007

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-007 

EXHIBIT 1

Page 37

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-008

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-008

DOCUMENT # 2024804135

ARRIVAL: 06/85/2024 09:54:33 AM

Hutson Assessing INC.

pecopnen: e6/05/2024 09:54:41 AM

DOCTYPE: AG6 PAGES:

JUN 1 0.2024

FILED FOR RECORD IN

ST JOSEPH COUNTY MICHIGAN

Received

LINDSAY OSWALD, REGISTER OF DEEDS

Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural Property

1. Streel Address of Property

2. Nama of County

St. Joseph

3. Clty/Townshij

lage Where Real Estate Is Located

Mendon Township

Clery

Township

[] Vilage

4. Name of Property Owner(s) (Print

or Type Legibly)

5. Property (D Number (from Tax Bill or Assessment Notice)

Dustin L. Cupp and Christina L. Cupp

75-010-016-012-00

6. Legal Description (Legal description is required; attach additional sheets If

7. Percentage of this properly thal Is, and will remaln Qualified Agricullural Properly

necessary)

(Do Net Include Qualified Forest Program Property)

See Exhibit

100%

8. Daytime Telephone Number

9. E-mail Address

Partial transfer under MCL 211.27a{6)(K)? Sea Page 2

(269) 651-4880

Ithorntonlaw@gmall.com

[ves

CERTIFICATION & NOTARIZATION (Notarization necessary for recording with Register of Deeds)

| certify that the information above is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. | further certify that the property noted on this affidavit

currently is, and will remaln, qualified agricultural property. Must

ge signed

er,

partner, corporate officer, or a duly authorized agent.

Dated: June 3

,20.24

Signed

Name (Printed or Type) Dustifl

L. Cupp

Title Owner

Dated: June 3

,20.24

Signed (han Tora 2 Lois

Name (Printed or Type) Christina {Cupp

Title Owner

STATE OF MICHIGAN

)

) ss.

COUNTY OF

ST. JOSEPH

)

Onthis_3rd

day of

June

20.24,

the above-named person(s) Dustin L. Cupp & Christina L. Cupp

each personally appeared before me. Each acknowledged that the persons’ execution of this affidavit was that

person's free act and deed and affirmed that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of that person's information, knowledge

and belief.

PRINT/TYPE NAME: Lance L. Thomton

NOTARY PUBLIC,

St. Joseph

County, Michigan

Acting in

St. Joseph

County

(NOTARY SEAL)

My commission expires: 06/21/2030

Drafler's Name

Sri

Drafter's Address _¢» 2

24%

itt

5%, HAT

270]

FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY AFTER THE INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

Is the percentage stated above in number 7 the current percentage of the property that is Qualified

O Yes

[5d No

Agricultural Property?

If NO, what is the cogectpercentage of the propsrly that Is currenlly Qualified Agriculiural Property?

Zz Elo

iy 2/74

S)24/ 202

Page 38

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-009

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-009 

EXHIBIT A — FORM 3676 

6. Legal description: 

The East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, 

Township 5 South, Range 10 West. 

Tax ID# 75-010-016-012-00

Page 39

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-010

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P5-010

DOCUMENT # 2024004131

Hutson Assessing Inc.

ARRIVAL: 06/05/2024 69 :54:33 AM

RECORDED: 06/05/2024 09:54:

54:37

DOCTYPE: A@6 PAGES:

JUN 10 w

FILED FOR RECORD IN

ST JOSEPH COUNTY MICHIGAN

Received

LINDSAY OSWALD, REGISTER OF DEEDS

Michigan Department of Treasury

This form Is Issued

under

of PA. 260 of

3676 (Rev. 12-18)

2000 and PA. 378 provobgnll Is mandatory.

Affidavit Attesting Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural Property

1. Street Address of Property

2. Name

of Counly

St. Joseph

3. City/Township/Village Where Real Eslate is Located

Mendon Township

Coty

Township

[] Vilage

4. Name of Property Owner(s) (Print or Type Legibly)

5, Property ID Number (from Tax Bill or Assessment Notice)

Dustin L. Cupp and Christina L. Cupp

75-010-016-013-00

6. Legal Descriplion (Legal description is required; atlach additional sheets if

7. Perceniage of this property that is, and will remain Qualified Agricultural Property

necessary)

{Bo Nol Include Qualified Forest Program Property)

See Exhibit A

100%

8. Daytime Telephone Number

9. E-mail Address

Partial transfer under MCL 211.27a{(

? See Page 2

(269) 651-4880

Ithorntonlaw@gmail.com

Yes

CERTIFICATION & NOTARIZATION (Notarization necessary for recording with Register of Deeds)

| certify that the Information abova Is true and complete to the best of my knowledge. | further certify that the property noted on this affidavit

currently is, and will remain, qualified agricultural property. Must be signeq

qwner, partner, corporate officer, or a duly authorized agent.

Dated: June 3

,20.24

Signed

Name (Printed or Type) Dustin:

Cupp

Title Owner

Dated: June 3

2024

Signed IZ)

‘ lia

Z on

Name (Printed or Type) Christina L. Cupp

Title Owner

STATE OF MICHIGAN

)

)ss.

COUNTY OF

ST. JOSEPH

)

Onthis_3rd

day of

June

20 24,

the above-named person(s) Dustin L. Cupp & Christina L. Cupp

each personally appeared before me. Each acknowledged that the persons’ execution of this affidavit was that

person's free act and deed and affirmed that the contents of this affidavit are true to the best of that person's information, knowledge

and belief.

pre y —

BRINTITYPE NAME: Lance L. Thornton

NOTARY PUBLIC,

St. Joseph

County, Michigan

Acting in

St. Joseph

County

(NOTARY SEAL)

My commission expires: 06/21/2030

Drafter's Name

ALY

Drafler's Address

;

LW MI $90,

FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY AFTER THE INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS

Is the percentage stated above in number 7 the current percentage of the property that is Qualified

0 Yes Bno

Agricultural Property?

If NO, what is the corpeclpercentagg

of the

Assessor's we

2247

Dae Tzd/ze ZY

thal Is currently Qualified Agricultural Properly?

Page 40

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-011

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

+ 

December 5, 2025 

P5-011 

EXHIBIT 

A — FORM 3676 

6. Legal description: 

The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, 

Township 5 South, Range 10 West. 

Tax ID# 75-010-016-013-00

Page 41

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-012

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-012 

EXHIBIT 2

Page 42

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-013

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-013 

mn pepoment cf eau, 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

me 

Tha form is issued under the autharity of P.A. 206 of 1893, Sec. 211.24 (¢) and Sec.211.34¢, 2s amonded. This is a model assessment notice to bo used by the local assessor. 

FROM: HUTSON ASSESSING INC 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

60450 FARRAND RD. 

. 

COLON, MI 49040 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

75010 016 013 00 

TEMP- RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

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

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

bd 

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence”: 

00% 

evseerses AUTO $5-DIGIT 49011 

% Exempt 

As "Qualified Agricultural Property”: 

100.00% 

CE DST 

IN Lal CHRISTINA 

L 

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personal”: 

00% 

MENDON, 

MI 

49072-9712 

% Exempt As "MBT Commercial Personal”: 

00% 

| LOTR 

RU 1 UE UTR TB ER TR 

TRU 

Exempt 

As “Qualified Forest Property”: 

~~ [] Yes 

[X] No 

: 

Exempt As "Development Property”: 

[OJYes 

[X] No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

W 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC 16 T5S R10W. 5 A+/-. PA 116 25 YRS 1980-2004 L-848 P-211. 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

102 

Agricultural 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 

102 

Agricultural 

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill for the 2025! 

PRIOR AMOUNT 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

year by approximately: 

5214 

YEAR aa 

AMOUNTYEAR: yop | CURRENT YEAR 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

2,575 

9.200 

6,625 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

9,200 

9,200 

0 

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

; 

! 

Sl 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

9,200 

9,200 

0 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in2024 

WAS 

In 1994, Proposal A was introduced, which set a 5% cap on the increase to Taxable Value. This cap applies statewide and 

aims to control the impact of rising property values on taxpayers. The State determined the inflation rate is 3.1% for 2025 

year. This means the prior year's taxable value should be multiplied by a factor of 1.031 for your current taxable value. 

If 

there was new construction in 2024 the value will be added to assessed and taxable. If a transfer of ownership occurred in 

2024 the assessed and taxable value will be identical due to uncapping. If neither new construction or a transfer occurred the 

taxable will follow the 3.1% cap. Assessed value is influenced by market changes. 

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031 

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

Phone: 

Email Address: 

DALEHUTSON@CHARTERMI.NET 

Name: 

: 

DALE HUTSON 

(269) 432-2834 

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

MENDON BOARD OF REVIEW APPOINTMENT ONLY! CALL 269.432.2834 FOR AN APPOINTMENT NO LATER THAN 4 PM 

FRIDAY 

MARCH 7. BOARD OF REVIEW WILL MEET AT THE MENDON TWP. HALL, 136 W. MAIN ST. MONDAY MARCH 10 FROM 1:30 PM 

TO 7:30 & TUESDAY MARCH 11 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30. APPEALS MAY BE MADE BY MAIL AND MUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 PM 

FRIDAY MARCH 7 AT DALE HUTSON, ASSESSOR, 60450 FARRAND RD., COLON, MI 49040. 

YOU MUST PROVIDE FOUR 

COPIES OF ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. 

NO EMAILED OR FAXED PROTESTS ACCEPTED. 

ASSESSING & TAX INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: BSAONLINE.COM

Page 43

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-014

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-014 

an Doparmant of Tress 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

ms 

This form ia issued under the authority of PA. 206 of 1893, Sec. 211.24 (c) and Sec.211.34¢, 83 emanded. This 

8 

0 model assessment notice to ba usad by the local assessor. 

FROM. HUTSON ASSESSING INC 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

60450 FARRAND RD. 

COLON, MI 49040 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

75010 016 012 00 

TEMP- RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT 

. 

ROLL 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

ms 

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence": 

00% 

Ceteee 

te AUTOS *6-DIGIT 49011 

% Exempt As "Qualified Agricultural Property”: 

100.00% 

CUPP DUSTIN 

L 

& CHRISTINA 

L 

51665 05600 

70 

% Exempt 

As "MBT Industrial Personal: 

00% 

MENDON, 

MI 49072-9712 

% Exempt 

As "MBT Commercial Personal”: 

00% 

[TET 

ETE UR RT LE 

RENT TTL 

Exempt 

As "Qualified Forest Property”: ~~ [] Yes 

No 

Exempt As "Development Property”: 

[Yes 

[X] No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

E 1/2 SE 1/4 NE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC 16 T5S R10W. 5 A+/-. PA 116 25 YRS 1980-2004 L-848 P-211. 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

102 

Agricultural 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 

102 

Agricultural 

The change in taxable value will increase/decrease your tax bill for the 2025 

PRIOR AMOUNT 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

ar by approximately: 

) 

n 

PRIOR YEAR TO 

year 

by 

app! 

ly: 

$214 

YEAR: 

2024 

AMOUNT YEAR: 0 

CURRENT YEAR 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

2,575 

9,200 

6,625 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

9.200 

9,200 

[4] 

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

i 

“ 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

9,200 

9,200 

[J] 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in2024 

WAS 

In 1994, Proposal Awas introduced, which set a 5% cap on the increase to Taxable Value. This cap applies statewide and 

aims to control the impact of rising property values on taxpayers. The State determined the inflation rate is 3.1% for 2025 

year. This means the prior year's taxable value should be multiplied by a factor of 1.031 for your current taxable value. 

If 

there was new construction in 2024 the value will be added to assessed and taxable. If a transfer of ownership occurred in 

2024 the assessed and taxable value will be identical due to uncapping. If neither new construction or a transfer occurred the 

taxable will follow the 3.1% cap. Assessed value is influenced by market changes. 

The 2025 inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031 

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

Name: 

Phone: 

Email Address: 

DALE HUTSON 

(269) 432-2834 

DALEHUTSON@CHARTERMI.NET 

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

MENDON BOARD OF REVIEW APPOINTMENT ONLY! CALL 269.432.2834 FOR AN APPOINTMENT NO LATER THAN 4 PM 

FRIDAY 

MARCH 7. BOARD OF REVIEW WILL MEET AT THE MENDON TWP. HALL, 136 W. MAIN ST. MONDAY MARCH 10 FROM 1:30 PM 

TO 7:30 & TUESDAY MARCH 11 FROM 1:30 PM TO 7:30. APPEALS MAY BE MADE BY MAIL AND MUST BE RECEIVED BY 4 PM 

FRIDAY MARCH 7 AT DALE HUTSON, ASSESSOR, 60450 FARRAND RD., COLON, MI 48040. 

YOU MUST PROVIDE FOUR 

COPIES OF ANY MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. 

NO EMAILED OR FAXED PROTESTS ACCEPTED. 

ASSESSING & TAX INFORMATION AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: BSAONLINE.COM

Page 44

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-015

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-015 

ATTACHMENT B 

MARCH BOARD OF REVIEW DENIALS REGARDING 

PARCEL NOS. 75-010-016-012-00 & 75-010-016-013-00

Page 45

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-016

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-016 

Michigan Deoartrant of Treasury 

Form 818, Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

Petition Number 

Parcel Code 

010016 013 00 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[OJ 

oenied 

[0] 

Assessed Value Changed From: 

| 

9,200 

Ivo: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board 

Chairperson: [Jyes 

[J no 

Member. 

[J ves 

[J No — 

Member 

[Jves 

[J NO 

Reason for Board Action: 

[3 Value assessed accurately. 

0 

value adjusted to 50% of Market. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value. you may appeal that dacision by filing 3 patstion with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232, Lansing Mi 48909. Commercial Real. Industrial Real. Developmental Real Commercial Personal, industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real. Residential Real. Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be fited on 

a Michigan Tax Tribuna! for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available al www michigan govitaxtnb. 

§ 2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

b 

Disposition by Board of Review The Board of Review must stale the reason for ts aclion below. 

Bd 

Deried 

[1 

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From: 

9,200 

To: 

Record of Vote - Board cr three member committee of board. 

) 

A 

(te 

tJ 

we 

Chairperson: jg] yes 

[1 ol mm 

Member. 

[X] ves 

[7] No £ey 

Member. 

[xX] ves 

[3 nok 

eason 

for 

Board 

Action 

[J value adjusted for: 

a Value determined to be accurate. 

1 you disagree with the decison of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that dacisicn by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232, Lansing. Mi 48909. Commercial Real. Industrial Real. Developmental Real Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appaalad by May 31 Agncultural Real, Reswiential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real. and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be fited 

an a Michigan Tax Tribunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.govAaxtnb. 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

0 

Dericd 

O 

Classification Changed From: 

102 

To: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Chairperson: [] ves 

[J Nom 

Member: 

[ves 

[7 NO mmm 

Member: 

[1] ves 

[1] no mms 

Reason for Board Action: 

If you @'523r00 with the deciaron 

of tho Board of Rev.ow regarding classificaton appeal s made by sendeg Form 2167 to tre State Ta« Commussion. P O Bow 30471 Lansing. Ms 48909 by Jure 30 

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

O 

Exemption Request Denied 

O 

Exemption percent modified from 

% To: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Member: 

YES 

: 

ember: 

[J 

Ono 

Member 

[J ves 

[J nog 

% 

Chairperson: 

[J ves 

[J 

No 

Reason for Board Acton: 

1 yeu disagroe wh tha dacision of the Board of Roview rogard:ng tentative taxade value you Must acpest that deosion by fing a petit.on with the Mcrugan Tex Trbural, PO Bov 30232 Lansing Mi 

ABS09 by July 31_The pation must ba fed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form of a lar: 20pToved by the Mchvgan Tox Trayunal Mchugan Tax Tribunal forms are availoblo 81 www michigan gov. 

Initials 

5. Adjournment 

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review 

Wily 

EL ele

Page 46

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-017

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P5-017 

Mizhgan Decanmens: of Treasury 

Form 618. Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

Parcel Code 

010 016 012 00 

Petition Number 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Dispasition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

a Denied 

a 

Assessed Value Changed From: [9200 ] 

0: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board 

Ono 

Member: 

[JYes 

[Ono —_ 

Member 

[Jves 

[Jno 

Chairperson: [] YES 

a 

TE 

= 

Reason for Board Action: 

[J value assessed accurately. 

O 

valve adjusted to 50% of Market. 

that 

1 by fitng a 

nv with the Michigan Tax Tnbunal at 

If you aisagree with the decisicn of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may 

PO Box 30232. Lansing. Mi. 48909 Commercial Real. Industnal Real. Ceveloomental Real Cemmercal Persanal, Industrial Personal and Utilty Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31 Agncultural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agnculturat Personal Property may be appeated by July 31 

The petition must be filed on 

3 Mchigan Tax Tribunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribuna! Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are avaiable at www michigan. govitaxtrib 

F 2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below 

A Denied 

[] 

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From: 

9,200 

To: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee 

of board. 

5 

2, 

a 

Chairperson: JX] ves 

[1] 

no 

f==—" 

Member: 

ves 

[1 

no £4 

Member 

[X] ves 

NO 

Reason for Board Action: 

O Value adjusted for: 

{7 value determined to be accurate. 

It you disagree wath the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decisian by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Rox 30232. Lansing. Mi 48600 Commercial Real, Industnal Rea!, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal. Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appea‘'ed by May 31 Agncultural Real, Residential Real. Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31 The petition must be filed 

on a Michigan Tax Trbunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www. michigan govitaxtrib. 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

102 

To: 

[J 

oenies 

[0 

cassification Changed From. 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board’ 

[J Nome 

Member: 

[J yes 

[J No mmm 

Member: 

[J ves 

[J no wien] 

Charrperson. 

[] ves 

Reason for Board Action: 

I you Aieivgroe wih thn dasis«on of tha Aaa of Review 1opvng classifcaon aoneal is mado by sondina Form 2157 10 tho State Tax Commvss on. PO Bax 30471 Lansing Mi 46909 by June 30 

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[J 

Exemption percent modified from 

% To: 

% 

Oa 

Exemption Request Denied 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of beard. 

Member: 

[J] ves 

[J no 

Member: 

[J] ves 

[J no. 

Chairperson: 

Yl 

NO 

ip 

Ovs 

O 

Iota 

Reason for Board Action 

¥ i6u a sa5rec wan tha Season of ho Board of Rowviow 1ogardng tentative 1810Dk viilug yOu 71st 82FEA° Tat GeEi5i07 By hing @ pation with the Auchugan Tox Trbunal. PO Box 30232, Lansing. Mi 

4B9CE by Julv 21_The patton must bo fited on a Michigan Tas Tribune! ferm or a form pe-oved by the Mich gan Tax Trouna! Mch:gan Tar Tribunal forms are available at www. 

naxtrb 

Taials 

initials. 

5. Adjournment 

Date ct Final adjournment of Board of Review 

"TOE 

Date 3 [ 1202 j—

Page 47

P-6

Page 48

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P6-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

St. Joseph County Treasurer's Office 06/05/2024

December 5, 2025

SEC. 135 ACT 206, 1893, as Amended-Sec. C.L. 1929

P6-001

| hereby certify that there are no tax liens of titles held by the state on the lands

described below, and that there are no tax liens or titles held by individuals

on said lands for five years preceding the 1st day of June and that the taxes

for said period of five years are paid.

DOCUMENT

# 2024004129

This certificate does not apply to taxes if any now in process of collection by

ARRIVAL:

06/05/2024 09:54:33

township, city or village collecting officers.

RECORDED:

06/05/2024 09:54:35

Kathy Humphreys, County Treasurer / LH

DOCTYPE:

D@1

PAGES:

75-010-009-018-00; 75-010-009-018-20;

DE FoR RECORD ah

JOSEPH COUNTY MICHIGAN

75-010-016-001-00

(sd

;

75-010-016-002-00 ;

LINDSAY OSWALD,

OF DEEDS

75-010-016-012-00;

75-010-016-013-00

WARRANTY DEED

Patrick Abstract and Title Office, Inc.

128 West Main Street

P.O. Box 157

Centreville, MI 49032

(269) 467-9885/(800) 401-6657

7545187

The Grantor(s), Cynthia A. Krill,

whose address is 24909 Michigan Ave, Mendon, MI 49072

convey(s) and warrant(s) to Grantee(s), Dustin L. Cupp and Christina L. Cupp, husband and wife,

whose address is 51665 Osgood Road, Mendon, Mi 49072

the following described premises:

Situated in the Township of Mendon, County of St. Joseph and State of Michigan

Parcel 1 and 2: The South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 10

West, EXCEPT Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 9, thence North 208.71 feet, thence West 208.71

feet, thence South 208.71 feet, thence East to the point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPT the West 330 feet of the

South 264 feet of the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 9.

Tax ID# 75-010-009-018-00

Tax ID# 75-010-009-018-20

Parcel 3: The East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 South, Range 10 West, EXCEPTING

THERREFROM the North 20 rods of the West 20 rods; ALSO EXCEPTING Beginning at the Northeast corner of

said Section 16 and running thence S00° 04'14"E, along the Section line, 330.02 feet to a capped rebar set; thence

N89°28'46"W 660.04 feet to a capped rebar set; thence N00°04'14"W 330.02 feet to the North line of Section 16;

thence $89°28'46"E, along said line, 660.04 feet to the point of beginning.

Also, the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5 South, Range 10 West, EXCEPT the

Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16.

Tax ID# 75-010-016-001-00 (part of)

Parcel 3A: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Section 16, Township 5 South, Range 10 West and running

thence S00° 04'14"E, along the Section line, 330.02 feet to a capped rebar set; thence N89°28'46"W 660.04 feet to

a capped rebar set; thence N00°04'14"W 330.02 feet to the North line of Section 16; thence $89°28'46"E, along

said line, 660.04 feet to the point of beginning.

Tax ID# 75-010-016-001-00 (part of)

Parcel 4: The West 20 rods of the North 20 rods of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 16, Township

5 South, Range 10 West.

Page 49

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P6-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P6-002

Tax ID# 75-010-016-002-00

Parcel 5: The East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5

South, Range 10 West.

Tax ID# 75-010-016-012-00

Parcel 6: The West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, Township 5

South, Range 10 West.

Tax ID# 75-010-016-013-00

Also known as property address: 24909 Michigan Ave, 24765 Michigan Ave, and Michigan Ave, Mendon, MI 49072

The Grantor grants to the Grantee the right to make 100% of the available divisions under Section 108 of the Land

Division Act, Act No. 288 of Public Acts of 1967.

This property may be located within the vicinity of farmland or a farm operation. Generally accepted agricultural and

management practices which may generate noise, dust, odors, and other associated conditions may be used and are

protected by the Michigan right to farm act.

for the sum indicated on the valuation affidavit filed herewith.

Subject to easements, reservations and restrictions of record

Dated: June 3, 2024

Signed by:

Cotte

OL. Siler

Cynthia A. Krill

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COUNTY OF ST. JOSEPH

Garrett T. McNally, Notary

State of Michigan, COUNTY OF Van Buren

My Commission Expires: 04-12-2029

Acting in the County of St. Joseph

When Recorded Return To:

Send Subsequent Tax Bills To:

Drafted By:

Dustin L. Cupp and Christina L. Cupp

Grantee

Attorney Garrett T. McNally

51665 Osgood Road

Jones Law Office

Mendon, MI 49072

120 W. Main St; P.O. Box 187

Marcellus, MI 49067

(269)646-5511; (269)646-2051 Fax

NO OPINION OF TITLE RENDERED

Tax Parcel # 75-010-016-001-00 & 75-010-016-002-00 & 75-010-016-012-00 & 75-010-016-013-00 & 75-010-009-018-20

& 75-010-009-018-00

Page 50

P-7

Page 51

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P7-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P7-001 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

Form 818. Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

Parcel Code 

Petition Number 

010016 013 00 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

Denied 

[[] 

Assessed Value Changed From: 

9,200 

10: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board 

Chairperson: 

YES 

NO 

Member: 

YES 

NO 

Member: 

YES 

a. 

p 

O 

Od 

O 

Od 

mber: 

[J 

On 

Initials 

— 

Reason for Board Action 

[J value assessed accurately. 

OJ 

value adjusted to 50% of Market. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232, Lansing Mi 48908. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on 

a Michigan Tax Tribunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www michigan gov/taxtrib. 

{ 2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below 

9,200 

To 

XM 

Denied 

| 

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

R 

Co 

v2 

A 

bl 

Chiakperson: fi vEs 

[J NO 

Member: 

Yes 

[] 

NO ey 

Member: 

§J ves 

[R nok 

Reason 

for 

Board 

Action 

. 

RERERARE 

[J Value adjusted for: 

[7] value determined to be accurate. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that dacision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

P.O Box 30232, Lansing, Mi 48909. Commercial Real. Industrial Real. Developmental Real Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. Agncultural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed 

on a Michigan Tax Tribunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtib 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

O 

Denied 

O 

Classification Changed From: 

102 

To: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Chairperson: 

[] Yes 

[1] NO—mms- 

Member: 

[J ves 

[J 

No me 

Member 

[J ves 

[J nome 

Reason for Board Action 

If you disagroo with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification_appeal is made by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commission. P O Box 30471 Lansing, Mi 48909 by June 30 

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[J 

Exemption Request Denied 

[J 

Exemption percent modified from 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board 

i 

i 

Ni 

Member: 

YES 

4 

Chairperson: 

[J] ves 

[J 

No — 

ber: 

[J 

OJ 

no 

_— 

Member: 

[] ves 

[J NO] 

Reason for Board Action. 

It you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value you must appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, 

P.O. Box 30232 Lansing. Mi 

48909 by July 31 

The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal Michigan Tex Tribunal forms are available at www michigan. govitaxtrib. 

% To: 

% 

5. Adjournment 

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review 

Board of Rt 

y 

Sjanatur 

Oa, 

5 

se 

=v al 

3 )uf2ei 

5 

N 

-

Page 52

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P7-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P7-002 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

Form 618. Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

Parcel Code 

010 016 012 00 

Petition Number 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

Denied 

O 

Assessed Value Changed From: 

Record of Vote 

- Board or three member committee of board 

Chairperson: [JYes 

[J no —__ 

Member 

[J YES 

[JNO —__ 

Member 

[Jves 

[J Noe 

Initials 

Reason for Board Action 

[J value assessed accurately. 

[J value adjusted to 50% of Market. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

P.O Box 30232. Lansing. Mi. 48809 Commercial Real, 

Industrial Real. Developmental Real Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. 

Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. 

The petition must be filed on 

a Michigan Tax Tribunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www michigan. gov/taxtrib 

F 2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

A 

Denied 

Fs 

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From: 

9,200 

To 

Record of Vote - Board or three member comr Fe of board. 

) 

— 

a ’ 

“2 

Cd 

C27 

g 

[J 

no 

Member: 

BJ 

ves 

[J] 

no — 

Member 

[X] ves 

F&F voli 

Chairperson: HX] ves 

fal 

Reason for Board Action: 

0 Value adjusted for: 

[T] value determined to be accurate. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, 

you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232. Lansing. 

Mi 48909 Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real. Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. 

The petition must be filed 

on a Michigan Tax Tribunal for or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www. michigan gov/taxtrib. 

3. CLASSIFICATION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[J 

oenies 

[OJ 

ciassification Changed From 

102 

To: 

Record of Vote 

- Board or three member committee of board 

Chairperson. 

[] Yes 

[J NO—mmms- 

Member. 

[1 YES 

[J 

NO mms 

Member: 

O 

ves 

[J noms 

Reason for Board Action: 

!t you disagree with the decision of the Aoard of Review regarding classification appeal is made by sending Form 2167 to the State Tax Commission. P.O Box 30471. 

Lansing. Mi_ 48908 by June 30 

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below 

O 

Exemption Request Denied 

O 

Exemption percent modified from 

% To: 

% 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Chairperson: 

[] yes 

[J 

No 

Member: 

[J ves 

[J no 

Initials. 

Reason for Board Action 

Member: 

[J] ves 

[J] NO—— 

Initials 

Initials 

I you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value you must appeal that decision by filing a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, 

P.O. Box 30232, Lansing. Mi 

48908 by July 31 The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Mich.gan Tax Tribunal Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www michigan govitaxtrib 

5. Adjournment 

Date cf Final adjournment of Board of Review 

ET 

Date 3 / 1202 — 

Vv 

ur

Page 53

P-8

Page 54

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION / QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 24-003355

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type:

Local Unit of Government

Unit of Government

Township Of Mendon (SAINT JOSEPH)

Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Dale

M.I.

Last Name

Hutson

Firm Name (if any)

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

60450 Farrand Rd.

City or Town

Colon

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49040

Telephone Number

269-432-2834

Fax Number

269-432-2834

E-mail Address

dalehutson@chartermi.net

Section 3: Subject Property Information

Parcel Identification Number(s):

75 010 016 012 00

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? If no, list which parcels are adjoining.

 

Yes

Classification of Property: Real

Agricultural

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Notice of Denial or 

Board of Review Decision) with this Small Claims Answer, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P8-001

Page 55

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal

These parcels are adjacent to a farmed parcel and receiving the extension of that AG exemption from local school operating millage. That exemption has not been 

removed for 2024. Form 3676 to recap after a 2024 sale has been denied as these parcels are residential lots without an AG operation starting in 1999 and every 

year after. I don't believe the Tribunal has the authority over a future (2025 YR) value. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues

List the tax year(s) denied:

not denied

Check what action prompted this appeal:

Local Unit

If you checked “other” above, explain:

If Petitioner is appealing from a Board of Review denial, check which Board of Review took action: 

List the date the Principal Residence Exemption or Qualified Agricultural Exemption was denied:

not denied

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Dale Hutson

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P8-002

Page 56

P-9

Page 57

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

2017 WL 2634774 (Mich. Tax Tribunal)

Michigan Tax Tribunal

Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth

State of Michigan

AARON M PHELPS, PETITIONER

COURTLAND TOWNSHIP, RESPONDENT

MTT Docket No. 16-002057

May 2, 2017

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER GRANTING

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT

*1 The Tribunal issued a proposed order denying Respondent's motion for summary disposition and granting Petitioner's

motion for summary disposition (“POJ”) on March 27, 2017. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from

date of entry of this POJ to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if available, if they do not agree

with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., exceptions).”

Neither party has filed exceptions to the POJ.

The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) considered the testimony and evidence and made specific findings of fact and

conclusions of law. The ALJ's determination is supported by the testimony and evidence and applicable statutory and case law.

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal's final decision in this case. 1 The Tribunal also incorporates by

reference the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a result:

The property's TV, as established by the Board of Review for the tax year at issue, is:

Parcel Number: 41-07-09-400-001

Year

2016

$60,326

The property's final TV for the tax year at issue, as determined by the Tribunal, is:

Parcel Number: 41-07-09-400-001

Year

2016

$35,824

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-001

Page 58

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Disposition is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is NOT entitled to a refund of the property's ad valorem taxes paid for the 2016

tax year.

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 qualified agricultural exemption as provided in this Final

Opinion and Judgment within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment.

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves the last pending claim 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 required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final

decision. 2 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 exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. 3 A copy of the motion must be served 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. 4 Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless

otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 5

*2 A claim of appeal must be filed with the appropriate filing fee. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the

final decision, it is an ““appeal by right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an

“appeal by leave.” 6 A copy of the claim must be filed with the Tribunal with the filing fee required for certification of the

record on appeal. 7 The fee for certification is $100.00 in both the Entire Tribunal and the Small Claims Division, unless no

Small Claims fee is required. 8

Steven H. Lasher

Tribunal Judge Presiding

ORDER GRANTING MICHIGAN FARM BUREAU'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

PROPOSED ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-002

Page 59

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

On January 18, 2017, Respondent filed a Motion requesting that the Tribunal render summary disposition in its favor pursuant

to MCL 2.116(C)(10), as “there is no disputed issue fact and the Township is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In the

Motion, Respondent contends that:

1. “This case involves the ‘resetting’ [i.e., recapping] provisions of MCL 211.27a(8) for qualified agricultural property. The

statute imposes the following requirement for ‘resetting’: ‘The qualified agricultural property was qualified agricultural property

for taxes levied in 1999 and each year after 1999.’ [Emphasis in the original.] The prior property owners had never claimed

the qualified agricultural property exemption Rom 18 mill local school operating millage afforded by MCL 211.7eeprior to

2011. Nevertheless, Petitioner claims that the taxable value of the property should be ‘reset’ if the property had been used

in a manner that would have satisfied the definition of ‘qualified agricultural property’ for 1999 and every year since 1999,

regardless of whether the prior property owners had actually claimed the qualified agricultural exemption.” [Emphasis added.]

2. “The issue presented by this motion is a purely legal question: To qualify for ‘resetting’ under qualifying agricultural property,

must all previous property owners have actually claimed the qualified agricultural exemption from local school operating taxes

for 1999 and each year thereafter? If so, judgment must be entered in favor of the Township. If not, then this Tribunal must

conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the property was actually being used in such a manner that it would have

qualified for each and every year between 1999 and 2010.”

3. “Since 1999, the property has had four owners, including Mr. and Mrs. Phelps.”

4. “The taxable value was ‘uncapped’ by virtue of the 2002 transfer to Kleinheksel. No uncapping occurred by virtue of the

2008 transfer from Kleinheksel to MBK Holding, LLC, because that entity claimed the exemption for transfers between entities

under common control or members of an affiliated group .... Had the 2002 uncapping event not occurred, the 2016 taxable

value would have been $35,824, which is what Mr. Phelps claims it should be ... [[Emphasis added.]

5. “With respect to exemption from the local school operating millage, the property was subject to a principal residence

exemption from 1999 through 2003. Neither a PRE nor a qualified agricultural exemption was claimed from 2003

through 2010. For the first time, MBK Holdings claimed a 100% qualified agricultural property exemption in 2011.”

[Emphasis added.]

6. “Petitioner Aaron Phelps and his wife, Elizabeth Phelps, purchased the subject property on or about March 11, 2016 .... The

Phelps executed and recorded an ‘Affidavit Attesting that Qualified Agricultural Property Shall Remain Qualified Agricultural

Property,’ Treasury Form 3676, on or about March 16, 2016 .... It is the Township's intention to accept that affidavit, such that

the 2016 taxable value of $60,326 will not become uncapped by virtue of the sale from MBK Holdings, LLC to the Phelps, and

the 2017 taxable value will increase only by the lesser of the increase in the general price level or 5% ....

7. “By letter dated March 29, 2016 ... Mr. Phelps asserted that the 2017 taxable value should be calculated as if there had been

no transfer of ownership since 1999. Following consultation with the Township attorney and the State Tax Commission, it

was determined that MCL 211.27a(8) requires that the property had actually been receiving a qualified agricultural exemption

for 1999 and every year since 1999, Accordingly, the assessor informed Mr. Phelps on May 4, 2016, that although the 2017

taxable value would not be uncapped by virtue of the 2016 transfer, the 2017 taxable value would not be reset pursuant to MCL

211.27a(8). Mr. Phelps fried this appeal within 35 days of that notification.”

8. “Courtland Township's position is that the resetting provisions of MCL 211.27a(8) are available only if the subject property

had actually been receiving the qualified agricultural exemption from local school operating taxes for 1999 and for each year

thereafter. [Emphasis in the original.] It is not sufficient that the property could have met the definition of qualified agricultural

property and may have been eligible for such an exemption. [[Emphasis in the original.] The only potential factual issue

with respect to that legal question is whether the subject property was or was not receiving the qualified agricultural property

exemption from local school operating taxes for each of the years from and including 1999. Whether the property was used in

such a manner that it could have qualified for such an exemption is irrelevant for purposes of this motion.”

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-003

Page 60

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

9. “That the property at issue had never received the qualified agricultural exemption from the local school operating millage

prior to 2011 is supported by the assessor's affidavit ... and we doubt that there will be any opposition to that. Therefore,

the Township will have satisfied its burden of providing documentary evidence that there is no disputed issue of fact, and the

Township is entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.” [Emphasis added.]

10. “Act 260 was initiated by Senate Bill 709. Substitute Senate Bill 709, passed by the Senate on October 12, 1999, included

an exemption from uncapping for transfers of qualified agricultural property, with language similar to that ultimately adopted,

but did not include the provision for resetting taxable value. The resetting provisions of subsections (8) and (9) were added by

a substitute House version of Senate Bill 709 reflecting the recommendation by the House Committee on Agriculture Resource

Management, passed by the House on June 7, 2000, and concurred by the Senate on June 8, 2000. The Legislative Analysis of

the House substitute reflects a deliberate inclusion of the language ‘for taxes levied’ as one of the requirements for resetting ....

[Emphasis added.] 1

11. “Claiming the exemption for qualified agricultural property ‘for taxes levied’ requires either that the property be classified

as agricultural for equalization purposes, or that the owner file an affidavit claiming the exemption.” 2 [Emphasis added,]

12. “Here it is undisputed that this property was classified as either residential vacant or residential improved every year from

1999 through 2016.” [[Emphasis added.]

13. “If the property is not classified as agricultural, the property owners must file an affidavit claiming the exemption (Treasury

Form 2599) and the owners of this property never did so until the 2011 tax year.” [Emphasis added.]

14. “For purposes of the exemption, ‘qualified agricultural property’ is defined by MCL 211.7dd(d). The determination of

whether property meets this definition depends on the nature of agricultural use, and the extent of property put to that use. For

purposes of this motion, however, it is irrelevant whether the Phelps parcel met the definition of ‘qualified agricultural property’

because it was not receiving the exemption from local school operating taxes prior to 2011.”

15. “Applying this principle here: The phrase ‘for taxes levied’ has no meaning unless it means that the property was actually

receiving the qualified agricultural exemption from local school operating taxes. 3 The construction urged by Mr. Phelps would

rewrite this requirement to read: ‘The qualified agricultural property was qualified agricultural property in 1999 and each year

after 1999,’ thus ignoring and rendering the phrase ‘for taxes levied’ meaningless and surplusage.” [Emphasis added.]

16. “The phraseology of MCL 211.27a(o) does not require that qualified agricultural property be receiving the qualified

agricultural exemption ‘for taxes levied’ in the year of the transfer, or for any particular time, in order to take advantage of

the exemption from uncapping for the year following transfer of such property. In contrast, the provisions for resetting do

specifically require that the property was qualified agricultural property ‘for taxes levied’ in 1999 and each year thereafter. 4

[Emphasis in the original,] This difference reflects a deliberate decision by the legislature that it was not necessary that property

be receiving the qualified agricultural exemption ‘for taxes levied’ in order to claim the uncapping exemption, but that it was

necessary that the property be receiving the exemption to qualify for resetting of the taxable value.”

17. “The uncapping and resetting provisions for agricultural property were drafted in recognition of the need for practical and

effective administration of the law, as well illustrated by this case. The determination of whether property meets the definition of

‘qualified agricultural property’ is a fact based determination requiring first an analysis of whether at least 50% of the property is

devoted to any of the various ‘agricultural uses' defined in MCL 324.36101(b). In addition, property, or portions of the property,

used for commercial storage, processing, distribution, marketing, shipping or other commercial or industrial purposes do not

qualify, so that needs to be determined. Moreover, in the case of a property which includes a residence, a determination must be

made whether that residence is ‘occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use ....’ MCL211.7dd.”

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-004

Page 61

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

18. “If Mr. Phelps' position is correct, and satisfying the definition of “qualified agricultural property' is sufficient regardless

of whether the exemption is granted, the local assessor and this Tribunal are faced with the daunting task of taking evidence

to determine whether a property met the definition of qualified agricultural property 18 years ago, in 1999. If so, did it meet it

again in 2000? If so, did it meet it in 2001? And so on for each and every year thereafter ....”

19. “To address this, the Legislature required that the property had actually received the qualified agricultural property exemption

for property taxes for 1999 and each year thereafter. This can be easily verified from the historical assessment records. This

requirement dovetails with provisions of the General Property Tax Act which allow for challenging the classification of property

for equalization purposes (MCL 211.3 4c( 16)), and for testing whether or not the property is truly qualified agricultural property

(MCL 211.7ee(4)-(8)) on an annual basis when the facts are more easily determined, not 18 or more years later.”

20. “In contrast, the requirement that the property had been receiving the qualified property tax exemption in the year of transfer

is not included in the uncapping exemption in MCL 211.27a(7)(o) because the assessor need only to evaluate the use of the

property during, at most, the prior 12 months. Thus, a record of receiving the exemption is not nearly so important”

21. “The legislative design acknowledges the incentive for property owners to claim the qualified agricultural property tax

exemption, if it is available to them. A property owner might deliberately choose not to take advantage of the uncapping

provisions of MCL 211.27a(7)(o) if unsure of the future use of the property and desiring to avoid the agricultural property

recapture tax. However, there is no ‘claw back’ of the local school operating millage if the status of a qualified agricultural

property for exemption purposes changes from year to year, and so there is no disincentive to claiming the qualified agricultural

property tax exemption.”

22. “The [Red Arrow Diary] 5 decision does not indicate whether the properties had achieved ... [the qualified agricultural

property] status by virtue of classification as agricultural property or the filing of an exemption affidavit. Rather, it was simply

accepted as true that the property was qualified agricultural property ‘for taxes levied in 1999 and for each year after 1999.” 6

23. “Bulletins issued by the State Tax Commission also do not directly address the issue of whether a subject property must

have been receiving the qualified agricultural exemption from local school operating taxes in order to be eligible for resetting,

and only considered that question in the context of uncapping pursuant to MCL 211.27a(7)(o). See Bulletin No. 7 of 2006,

Transfers of Qualified Agricultural Property (August 29, 2006). However, the position taken by Courtland Township here is

consistent with staff advice from Timothy Schnelle of the State Tax Commission dated May 3, 2016, and attached to petitioner's

own [petition] 7 .... Mr. Schnelle pointed out that the Red Arrow Dairy case involved a situation in which the property had

admittedly been receiving a qualified agricultural exemption since 1999, unlike the Phelps situation. In addition, he set forth the

department's position that ‘we interpret the statute as requiring actual qualified ag designation since 1999 ....’ With respect to

this, Mr. Schnelle further noted: ‘How can one determine the amount of tilled acreage and the relative values of the residential

and agricultural uses going back 18 years?”’

24. “Mr. Phelps cannot be heard now to complain that the property should have been included in one of the agricultural

classifications in previous years. Each year, a property owner has the opportunity to dispute the classification of a parcel, with a

right to appeal to the State Tax Commission, MCL 211.34c(6). In addition, a property owner may claim the qualified agricultural

exemption by filing the required affidavit claiming the exemption, without seeking to change the classification. In 1999 through

2002, the Squires were claiming a principal residence ... exemption for this property, so perhaps they did not see any necessity

for challenging their classification or claiming exemption as a qualified agricultural property. But it is inexplicable why the

Kleinheksels and their related company, MBK Holdings, never sought to claim the qualified agricultural exemption from 2003

through 2010 if they were entitled to it.”

25. “Mr. Phelps also may not [be] heard to complain that the outcome here is unfair, or that the Tribunal should exercise powers

of equity to ‘treat as done that which should have been done.’ This Tribunal and the Michigan Appellate Courts have made

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-005

Page 62

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

[it] absolutely clear that the Tribunal does not have powers of equity. See Electronic Data Systems Corp v Flint Township, 253

Mich App 538, 548[; 656 NW2d 215] (2002)....”

On February 8, 2017, Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent's Motion and a Cross-Motion for Summary Disposition pursuant

to MCR 2.116(C)(10). In the Response and the Cross- Motion, Petitioner contends that:

1. “This case concerns 60 contiguous acres of farmland .... [that] has continuously been ‘qualified agricultural property.’ In 2002,

the owner of the Farm (who had owned it for over twenty-three years) sold it. Although the 2002 purchaser continued to farm the

property as it had been farmed before, he never filed the Form 3676 Affidavit, resulting in the uncapping of the taxable value.”

2. “In 2016, Petitioner purchased the Farm and promptly filed Form 3676, attesting that the Farm shall remain qualified

agricultural property. Petitioner also requested that the Courtland Township Assessor revise the taxable value of the Farm to the

value it would have had [had] no transfer occurred in [2003], pursuant to MCL 211.27a(8).”

3. “Petitioner has strictly complied with the recapping requirements established by MCL 211.27a(8): the Farm has and continues

to meet the statutory definition of qualified agricultural property, and Petitioner has filed an affidavit attesting to continue using

the Farm for qualified agricultural purposes. Therefore, Petitioner, not Respondent, is entitled to summary disposition and the

Farm's taxable value should be re-capped.”

4. “The statute does not mention, much less require, exemption from local school operating taxes (a matter wholly unrelated

to taxable value) in order to re-cap. Rather, the statute requires only that the property be ‘qualified agricultural property/ that is

[sic] property ‘devoted primarily to agricultural use.’ The Farm is, and has been, ‘qualified agricultural property.”' 8

5. “The law ... provides that a transfer of qualified agricultural property does not constitute a “transfer of ownership' if the

transferee files an affidavit with the local tax assessor and the register of deeds, attesting that the qualified agricultural property

will remain qualified agricultural property. MCL 211.27a(o) .... However, for a variety of reasons (including simple ignorance),

property owners do not always file Form 3676, resulting in the uncapping of taxable values. The Legislature addressed this

situation in MCL 211.27a(8) by requiring assessors to ‘revise’ the current year's taxable value to the value of the property ‘would

have had if there had been no transfer of ownership ... since December 31, 1999 ....’ MCL 211.27a(8). The only requirements

for recapping a property's taxable value are that the property (1) has been ‘qualified agricultural property’ without interruption

since 1999, and (2) that the owner files an affidavit with the local assessor pursuant to MCL 211.27a(o).”

6. “Allowing the current owner to adjust the property's taxable value through this process facilitates the statute's purpose of

easing tax burdens on farmers, thereby promoting the continued use of land for agricultural purposes. 2000 Leg. Analysis.

Without such a provision, farmers in Petitioner's position, who have acquired agricultural land and intend to continue to use the

land for agricultural purposes, would be stuck paying taxes on an inflated taxable value relative to other farmland.”

7. “Petitioner has submitted his own affidavit, as well as affidavits from the Farm's prior owner (and deceased owner's daughter)

attesting to ... [the] fact [[of the property's agricultural use]. See Exhibits A-C. The Township has no contrary evidence.

Therefore, the fact that the Farm is (and has been) “qualified agricultural property' is undisputed.”

8. “MCL 211,27a(8) makes no mention of 211.7ee at all, much less incorporates by reference its exemption procedure, and the

Township has no authority to impose additional requirements not authorized by the Legislature.” 9

9. “The statute is clear; all that is required is that the property be “qualified agricultural property.' The Legislature defined

qualified agricultural property as property devoted primarily to agricultural use. [[Emphasis in the original.] The key word

is ‘devoted.’ It only matters how the property has been used, not whether an exemption from school taxes was granted by the

Township. [Emphasis in the original.] The Township's position re-writes the law. Not only would a Form 2599 exemption have

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-006

Page 63

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

to be requested since 1999, but the Township would have to approve it. No such obstacle was interposed by the Legislation

and none can now be demanded by the Township.” 10

10. ... the 2016 taxable value should have been $35,824, which in turn should have reduced the 2016 summer tax bill, which

was unpaid when the recapping was requested. Consequently, Petitioner is now owed a partial refund for summer and winter

2016 taxes.”

On February 17, 2017, Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner's Motion, In the Response, Respondent contends that:

1. “Petitioner did not contest that the property had not been receiving the qualified agricultural exemption from property taxes

for 1999 and each year thereafter. Rather, Petitioner takes the position that such exemption is not a prerequisite to resetting.”

2. “Considering the difficulty, expense, and burden on staff, the Township does not intend to contest the Affidavits filed by

Petitioner. Indeed, such burden on the taxing unit is the reason why the resetting statute requires confirmation of agricultural

use by reference to the easily verifiable fact of whether the property had been receiving the qualified agricultural exemption

for 1999 and each year thereafter.”

3. “The Township's position is that the actual use of the property is irrelevant, and that the Petitioner is not eligible for resetting

unless the property had been receiving the qualified agricultural exemption from local school operating taxes for 1999 and every

single year thereafter. Indisputably it was not.”

On February 27, 2017, the Michigan Farm Bureau (“Farm Bureau”) filed a Motion requesting that the Tribunal permit it to

file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Petitioner. In the Motion, the Farm Bureau contends that “... [the] Farm Bureau has

determined that resolution of the legal issue in this case will significantly impact the owners of farmland throughout the state”

and “... [the] Amicus Brief ... offers additional analysis and different perspectives on the legal issue and that the Brief will aid

the Tribunal in reviewing the pending motions.”

The Tribunal has reviewed the Motions, the Responses, and the case file and finds the resolution of the legal issue may, in

fact, “significantly impact the owners of farmland throughout the state” and that the amicus brief, although unnecessary, does

provide some marginal assistance in resolving that issue. 11 As a result, the Farm Bureau has shown good cause to justify the

granting of its Motion.

With respect to the parties' motions, there is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. Nevertheless,

the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a decision on such motions. 12 In that regard, a motion

filed under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for Petitioner's claim based upon the Tribunal's consideration of all

pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other documentary evidence submitted by the parties “in the light most

favorable to the party opposing the motion.” 13 Further, the Tribunal may only grant such motions if the parties' submissions

show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 14

If it is, however, determined that an asserted claim can be supported by evidence at trial, the motion under (C)(10) must be

denied. 15 The moving party bears the initial burden of supporting its position by presenting its documentary evidence for the

court to consider. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. 16 Where

the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue rests on a non-moving party, the non-moving party may not rely on mere

allegations or denials in pleadings but must go beyond the pleadings to set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue

of material fact exists. 17 If the opposing party fails to present documentary evidence establishing the existence of a material

factual dispute, the motion is properly granted. 18

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-007

Page 64

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

8

Here, Respondent contends that the property is not entitled to have its taxable value “reset” because the property had not “actually

been receiving the qualified agricultural exemption from local school operating taxes for 1999 and for each year thereafter.” In

support of its argument, Respondent indicates that the resetting of the taxable value would render the phrase “for taxes levied”

meaningless contrary to principles of statutory construction. 19 More specifically, Respondent is asking the Tribunal to interpret

that phrase so as to limit the “resetting” to properties that have annually received qualified agricultural exemptions only. 20

Although the applicable statutes are not strictly tax exemption statutes, they do provide for an exception to full taxation. As

such, they are sufficiently similar to exemption statutes so as to require that they be “strictly construed in favor of the taxing

authority.” 21 That does not, however, mean that the Tribunal “should give a strained construction which is adverse to the

Legislature's intent.” Nevertheless, the term or, more appropriately, phrase ““for the taxes levied” is not, unfortunately, defined

and, as a result, the Tribunal is required to interpret that phrase to “glean the Legislature's intent.” 22 Any such interpretation

does, however, begin with a review of the plain language of the statutes at issue. 23 In that regard, MCL 211.27a(7) provides,

in pertinent part:

Transfer of ownership does not include the following:

(0) ... 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 .... 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 ... shall be adjusted under subsection (3) as of the December 31 in the year that the

property ... ceases to be qualified agricultural property ....

[Emphasis added.]

The phrase “for taxes levied” is not contained in this portion of the statutory scheme relating to transfers of qualified agricultural

property (i.e., uncapping) and said omission is considered “intentional.” 24 There is also no requirement that the property have

a qualified agricultural exemption. Rather, the statute merely requires the property to be “qualified agricultural property” and

indicates that said status can “cease” at any time, which is consistent with the requirements for the granting and rescission of

a qualified agricultural exemption. 25

As for the recapping portion, MCL 211,27a(8) provides, in pertinent part:

If all of the following conditions are satisfied, the local tax collecting unit shall revise the taxable value of qualified agricultural

property taxable on the tax roll in the possession of that local tax collecting unit to the taxable value that qualified agricultural

property would have had if there had been no transfer of ownership of that qualified agricultural property since December

31, 1999 and there had been no adjustment of that qualified agricultural property's taxable value under subsection (3) since

December 31, 1999:

(a) The qualified agricultural property was qualified agricultural property for taxes levied in 1999 and each year after 1999.

(b) The owner of the qualified agricultural property files an affidavit with the assessor of the local tax collecting unit under

subsection (7)(o).

[Emphasis added.]

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P9-008

Page 65

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

9

Although the phrase “for tax levied” is contained in this portion of the statutory scheme, the statute does not specifically require

that the property had to have had a qualified agricultural exemption for the 1999 tax year and each year after 1999. Rather, the

plain language of the statute requires the property to have been qualified agricultural property during that time period, which

is consistent with Petitioner's offered interpretation of that phrase. More specifically, the disputed phrase is one that is, in fact,

commonly used in the General Property Tax Act to denote the effective date of particular statutory provisions (i.e., “[f]or taxes

levied after December 31, 2002,” etc.) 26 and the Tribunal has a responsibility to read the contested portion of the statute in

relation to the Act so as to ensure that the statutory provisions “work in mutual agreement.” 27 Additionally, said phraseology

seems to have acquired a particular meaning in the Act and should be construed accordingly. 28

As for Respondent's reliance on the bill analysis prepared by the House Legislative Analysis Section in support of the “deliberate

inclusion” of the phrase, said reliance is misplaced, as the Michigan Court of Appeals has stated that “staff prepared legislative

analysis does not ‘summarize the intentions of those who have been designated by the Constitution to be participants in

this legislative process' and therefore ‘should be accorded very little significance by courts when construing a statute.”' 29

Nevertheless, it is clear that the object of the statute and the harm it was designed to remedy related to the continuation of

farmland with a remedy, albeit punitive in nature, providing for a recapture of taxes should the property no longer be primarily

devoted to agricultural use. 30 In that regard, the amendment adding the language at issue did not become effective until March

28, 2001.

As for the definition of “qualified agricultural property,” MCL 211.27a(11)(t) provides “[q]ualified agricultural property” means

that term as defined in section 7dd” and MCL 211.7dd(d) provides, in pertinent part:

“Qualified agricultural property” means unoccupied property and related buildings classified as agricultural, or other

unoccupied property and related buildings located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined in

section 36101 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.36101. Related buildings

include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use and who has not claimed a

principal residence exemption on other property .... Property used for commercial storage, commercial processing, commercial

distribution, commercial marketing, or commercial shipping operations or other commercial or industrial purposes is not

qualified agricultural property. A parcel of property is devoted primarily to agricultural use only if more than 50% of

the parcel's acreage is devoted to agricultural use. An owner shall not receive an exemption for that portion of the total

state equalized valuation of the property that is used for a commercial or industrial purpose or that is a residence that is not

a related building ....

[Emphasis added.] 31

The phrase “for taxes levied” is not in the statutory definition of “qualified agricultural property” and the provision does not

condition the status of property as qualified agricultural property based on the issuance of a qualified agricultural exemption.

Rather, the definition requires the property to either be classified as agricultural property or that the property be primarily

devoted to agricultural use.

Given the above, Respondent's contention that the Legislature included the phrase “for tax levied” as an indication that the

issuance of a qualified agricultural exemption was a prerequisite to recapping is strained at best and “courts may not read into

the statute a requirement that the Legislature has seen fit to omit.” 32 Although Respondent's contention relative to the efficient

administration of the said recapping has some merit, said administration does not justify the imposition of a requirement not

provided by law. 33 Further, any difficulty in said administration is alleviated by the burden that an owner or, more appropriately,

transferee would have in establishing that the property was qualified agricultural property for taxes levied in 1999 and each

year after by a preponderance of evidence, which in this case has been established by the submission of Petitioner's affidavits

and Respondent's failure to contest those affidavits.

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P9-009

Page 66

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

Said determination is consistent with a prior decision rendered by the Tribunal. 34 More specifically, the Tribunal specifically

found in that case that “[p]roof that the subject property is qualified agricultural property and a Form 3676 affidavit attesting to

the property's continued use of qualified agricultural property is all that section 8 requires.” 35 Although Respondent contends

that the Tribunal did not in that case consider the question at issue in this case (i.e., whether the property was required to have been

receiving a qualified agricultural exemption) given that it was undisputed that the property was qualified agricultural property,

said contention is without merit, as the question was specifically addressed as the Tribunal did not find or otherwise hold that

the property was also required to have received a qualified agricultural exemption to be entitled to recapping. Additionally,

Respondent's reliance on statements made by a representative of the Michigan State Tax Commission (“STC”) is also misplaced

because those statements are unsupported and “the tribunal is the final agency for the administration of property tax laws.” 36

“When the Legislature fails to address a concern in the statute with a specific provision, the courts cannot insert a provision

simply because it would have been wise of the Legislature to do so to effect the statute's purpose.” Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass'n,

[supra]... at [p] 560 ....

Finally or, more importantly, the Tribunal finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the status of the

property as qualified agricultural property for the 1999 tax year and each after 1999 and that Petitioner is entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. More specifically, the submitted documents establish that the property was qualified agricultural

property during that time period and, as a result, was, based on the filing of Petitioner's March 16, 2016 affidavit, entitled to a

recapping or recalculation (i.e., resetting) of the property's taxable value for the 2016 tax year as if there had been no transfer

since 1999 in the amount indicated herein. 37 Petitioner is not, however, entitled to a refund of the taxes paid for the 2016 tax

year, as the property's taxable value is being proposed for “adjustment under subsection (8)” by this decision, which is occurring

after the collection or payment of taxes for that tax year. 38 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Michigan Farm Bureau's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent's Motion for Summary Disposition is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the property's taxable value (TV) for the tax year at issue is as follows:

Parcel Number: 41-07-09-400-001

Year

2016

$35,824

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is NOT ENTITLED to a refund of the property's ad valorem taxes paid for the

2016 tax year.

JUDGMENT

This is a proposed decision (“POJ”) prepared by the Michigan Administrative Hearings System. It is not a final decision. As

such, no action should be taken based on this decision. In that regard, the Tribunal will, after the expiration of the time period

for the opposing party to file a response to exceptions, will review the case file, including the POJ and all exceptions and

responses, if any, and: 39

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

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-010

Page 67

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as the final decision.

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 date of entry of this POJ to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if

available, that they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., exceptions).

Exceptions are limited to the evidence submitted with the Motion, the Response, and any matter addressed in the POJ. There

is no fee for filing exceptions and the opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions were mailed to or electronically

served on that party (i.e., email), if the parties agree to service by email, to file a written response to the exceptions. 40

Exceptions and responses filed by e-mail or facsimile will not be considered in the rendering of the Final Opinion and Judgment.

A copy of a party's written exceptions or response must be sent to the opposing party by mail or email, if email service is

agreed upon by the parties, and proof must be submitted to the Tribunal demonstrating that the exceptions or response were

served on the opposing party.

Peter M. Kopke

Administrative Law Judge Presiding

March 27, 2017

Footnotes

See MCL 205.726.

See TTR 261 and 257.

See TTR 217 and 267.

See TTR 261 and 225.

See TTR 261 and 257.

See MCL 205.753 and MCR 7.204.

See TTR 213.

See TTR 217 and 267.

See the House Legislative Analysis Section, Addendum to Senate Fiscal Agency Analysis of SB 09 Dated 1-10-00, (May

24, 2000).

See MCL 211.7ee(2) and (4).

MTT Docket No. 24-003355

December 5, 2025

P9-011

Page 68

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

12

3

Respondent cites Aroma Wines & Equipment, Inc v Columbian Distribution Services, Inc, 497 Mich 337, 345-56; 871

NW2d 136 (2015) in support of the ““principle” relied upon. Respondent also cites People v Miller, 498 Mich 886; 869

NW2d 606 (2015), Kincaid v City of Flint, 311 Mich App 76; 874 NW2d 193 (2015), Harbor Watch Condominium Ass

A v Emmet County Treasurer, 308 Mich App 380; 863 NW2d 745 (2014), and Robertson v DaimlerChryselr Corp, 465

Mich 732, 748: 641 NW2d 567 (2002).

4

Respondent cites Tyler v Livonia Public Schools, 220 Mich App 697, 701; 561 NW2d 390, 392 (1996), affd, 459 Mich

382; 590 NW2d 560 (1999) for the proposition that “phraseological distinctions in the subparagraphs of a statutory

section presumably reflect a legislative intent to treat some things differently.” Respondent also cites People v Carruthers,

301 Mich App 590, 604; 837 NW2d 16 (2003) and United States Fidelity and Guarantee Co v Michigan Catastrophic

Claims Ass'n (On Rehearing), 484 Mich 1, 14; 795 NW2d 101 (2009).

5

See the Order granting Petitioner's Motion for Summary Disposition issued by the Tribunal in Red Arrow Daity LLC v

Hartford Twp on November 30,2007 (MTT Docket No. 320205).

6

The parties stipulated that the properties at issue were qualified agricultural property for taxes levied in 1999 and for each

year after 1999. Respondent also indicates that the decision in Lyle Schmidt Farms, LLC v Mendon Twp, 315 Mich App

824; NW2d (2016) also has no applicability as “the opinion specifically noted there was no dispute that the properties

were qualified agricultural properties.”

7

Although Respondent uses the word “complaint,” the only pleadings filed in the Tribunal are petitions and answers.

See TTR 221(1).

8

Petitioner cites Keyzer v Christian Rest Home Ass'n 32 Mich App 286, 288; 188 NW2d 672 (1971) for the proposition

that “[i]t is not for the court [[or, in the instant case, the Tribunal] to add language to a clear and explicit statute.”

Petitioner also cited Kirkaldy v Rim MD, et al, 478 Mich 581, 587; 734 NW2d 201 (2007), F. M. Sibley Lumber Co v

Dep't of Revenue, 311 Mich 654, 660; 19 NW2d 132 (1945).

9

Petitioner cites Davidson v Bugbee, 227 Mich App 264, 267; 575 NW2d 574 (1977) (citing Johnson v. Marks, et al,

224 Mich App 356, 358; 568 NW2d 689 (1997)) for the proposition that “[i]n construing a statute ... omissions in the

language are deemed to be intentional.”

10

Petitioner cites Eldenbrady v City of Albion, 294 Mich App 251,254; 816 NW2d 449 (2011) for the proposition that

“[t]he words contained in the statute provide ... the most reliable evidence of the Legislature's intent” and Pohidski v City

of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 638; 641 NW2d 219 (2002) for the proposition “[w]here the language is unambiguous,

‘we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning, looking outside the statute to ascertain the Legislature's intent

only if the statutory language is ambiguous.”

11

See TTR 223(7).

12

See TTR 261 and 215.

13

See Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 187 (1999) and Quinto v Cross and Peters Co, 451 Mich 358,

362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).

14

See Smith v Globe Life Insurance Co, 460 Mich 446,454-5; 597 NW2d 28 (1999) and Quinto, supra at 362.

15

See Arbelius v Poletti, 188 Mich App 14, 18; 469 NW2d 436 (1991).

16

See Neubacher v Globe Furniture Rentals, Inc, 205 Mich App 418,420; 522 NW2d 335 (1994).

17

See McCart v J Walter Thompson USA, Inc, 437 Mich 109, 115; 469 NW2d 284 (1991).

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P9-012

Page 69

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

13

18

See McCormic v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 202 Mich App 233,237; 507 NW2d 741 (1993).

19

See MCL 211.27a(8)(a).

20

Although Respondent makes this argument, it does recognize that the property received a qualified agricultural

exemption beginning in 2011. In that regard, there is some question as to why the property was receiving a principal

residence exemption (“PRE”) from 1999 to 2003 that is not addressed by Petitioner's affidavits, as those affidavits merely

indicate that the property was “primarily devoted” to agricultural uses during those years and from 2004 to 2010. The

fact that Respondent did, however, grant the property a qualified agricultural exemption of 100% beginning in 2011

does, however, address concerns regarding related buildings. See MCL 211,7dd(d)

21

See Ashley Capital, LLC v Dep't of Treasury, 314 Mich App 1, 7; 884 NW2d 848 (2015) (i.e., “‘tax statutes that grant

tax credits or exemptions are to be narrowly construed in favor of the taxing authority because such statutes reduce the

amount of tax imposed”D’ citing Alliance Obstetrics & Gynecology, PLC v Dep't of Treasury, 285 Mich App 284,286;

776 NW2d 160 (2009)).

22

See Michigan United Conservation Clubs v Lansing Twp, 423 Mich 661, 664-65; 378 NW2d 737 (1985).

23

See Spartan Stores, Inc v City of Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 569; 861 NW2d 347 (2014) (i.e., “[t]he primary

goal of statutory interpretation ‘is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature”D’ citing Lafarge Midwest,

Inc v Detroit, 290 Mich App 240,246; 801 NW2d 629 (2010)).

24

See Bronson Methodist Hospital v Allstate Ins Co, 286 Mich App 219, 228; 779 NW2d 304 (2009) (i.e., the Legislature

“is presumed to know the rules of statutory construction and therefore its use or omission of language is generally

presumed to be intentional”).

25

See MCL 211.7ee(4) (i.e., “the assessor shall determine if the property is qualified agricultural property and if so shall

exempt the property from the collection of the tax as provided in subsection (1) until December 31 of the year in which

the property is no longer qualified agricultural property as defined in section 7dd”) and 211.7ee(5) (i.e., “[n]ot more

than 90 days after all or a portion of the exempted property is no longer qualified agricultural property, the owner shall

rescind the exemption for the applicable portion of the property by filing with the local tax collecting unit a rescission

form prescribed by the department of treasury”)- [Emphasis added.]

26

See MCL 211.2, MCL 211.7o, MCL 211.7cc, MCL 211.7dd, and MCL 211.79.

27

See Spartan Stores, supra at p 569. See also G C Timmis & Co v Guardian Alarm Co, 468 Mich 416,420-21; 662 NW2d

710 (2003) (i.e., “the emphasized language does not stand alone, and thus it cannot be read in a vacuum .... [i]nstead,

[i]t exists and must be read in context with the entire act, and the words and phrases used there must be assigned such

meanings as are in harmony with the whole of the statute” citing Arrowhead Dev Co v Livingston Co Rd Comm, 413

Mich 505, 516; 322 NW2d 702 (1982)).

28

See Bronson Methodist Hospital, supra at p 223 (i.e., “[w]here words “have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning

in the law,' they should be construed according to that meaning” citing Feyz v Mercy Memorial Hospital, 475 Mich 663,

673; 719 NW2d 1 (2006)).

29

See Ford Motor Co v Dep't of Treasury, 313 Mich App 572, 587; 884 NW2d 587 (2015), appeal denied, 887 NW2d

799 (2016) citing In re Certified Question, 468 Mich 109, 115 n. 5; 659 NW2d 597 (2003).

30

See VanGessel v Lakewood Public Schools, 220 Mich App 37,41; 558 NW2d 248,251 (1996) citing ABC Supply Co v

City of River Rouge, 216 Mich App 396, 398; 549 NW2d 73 (1996).

31

MCL 324.36101(b) provides:

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P9-013

Page 70

Phelps v. Courtland Twp., 2017 WL 2634774 (2017)

 © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

14

“Agricultural use” means the production of plants and animals useful to humans, including forages and sod crops;

grains, feed crops, and field crops; dairy and dairy products; poultry and poultry products; livestock, including breeding

and grazing of cattle, swine, captive cervidae, and similar animals; berries; herbs; flowers; seeds; grasses; nursery

stock; fruits; vegetables; maple syrup production; Christmas trees; and other similar uses and activities. Agricultural use

includes use in a federal acreage set-aside program or a federal conservation reserve program. Agricultural use does not

include the management and harvesting of a woodlot.

32

See Book-Gilbert v Greenleaf, 302 Mich App 538, 542; 840 NW2d 743, 745-46 (2013) citing In re Hurd-Marvin Drain,

331 Mich 504, 509; 50 NW2d 143 (1951) and Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass'n v Office of Fin & Ins Regulation, 288 Mich

App 552, 560; 808 NW2d 456 (2010).

33

The Court of Appeals also stated in Book-Gilbert, supra at p 542:

34

See Red Arrow Dairy, supra.

35

The properties at issue in both Red Arrow Dairy case and the Lyle Schmidt Farms case were considered qualified

agricultural property and entitled to the recapping. Neither case indicated that the properties were required to also have

a qualified agricultural exemption to be entitled to said recapping. Rather, the Court of Appeals in Lyle Schmidt Farms,

supra at p stated:

“Courts may not speculate regarding legislative intent beyond the words expressed in a statute. Hence, nothing may be

read into a statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the act itself.” Mich Ed Ass'n v

Secretary of State, 489 Mich 194, 217-218; 801 NW2d 35 (2011).... “The words used by the Legislature are given their

common and ordinary meaning.” Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 491 Mich 200,206; 815 NW2d 412 (2012).

[Emphasis added.]

In that regard, the “common and ordinary meaning” of the phrase or phraseology when analyzed by its grammatical

components (i.e., the phrase “was qualified agricultural property” is a past participle verb, while “for taxes levied in

1999 and each year after 1999” is a prepositional phrase modifying that verb) merely indicates when the property was

required to be qualified agricultural property.

36

See MCL 205.753(1).

37

See MCL 211.27a(8) (i.e., “[i]f all of the following conditions are met, the local tax collecting unit shall revise the

taxable value of qualified agricultural propertyand Michigan Properties, LLC v Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518, 531-32;

817 NW2d 548, 554 (2012). [Emphasis added.]

38

See MCL 211.27a(9) (i.e., “[i]f the taxable value of qualified agricultural property is adjusted under subsection (8), the

owner of that qualified agricultural property is not entitled to a refund for any property taxes collected under this act on

that qualified agricultural property before the adjustment under subsection (8)”).

39

See MCL 205.726.

40

See MCL 205.762(2) and TTR 289(1) and (2).

2017 WL 2634774 (Mich. Tax Tribunal)

End of Document

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P9-014

Page 71

P-10

Page 72

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-001

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-001 

AG. PROPERTY/RECAPTURE TAX 

i 

S.8.709 & 1246: ENROLLED ANALYSIS 

8 

dn 

Senate Fiscal Ayency 

ath 

Telephone: (517) 873-5383 

P. Q. Box 30036 

LY = A 

Fax: (617) 373-1986 

Lansing, Michigan 48909-7536 

Zh BILL ANALYSIS 

ToD! 51 » 373-0543 

Senate Bills 709 and 1246 (as enrolled) 

PUBLIC 

ACT! 

61 

of 

2000 

Sponsor: Senator Mike Goschka (S,8. 709) 

Senator George A. McManus (S.B. 1246) 

Senate Committee: Finance (S.B. 709) 

Farming, Agribusiness and Food Systems (S.B. 1246) 

House Committee; Agriculture and Resource Management 

Date Completed: 9-13-00 

RATIONALE 

Much has been sald 

in recent years about how 

agriculture has come under increasing economic 

pressures. To address this and other related issues, 

the Senate Agriculture Preservation Task Force was 

created in the spring of 1999. The task force was 

asked lo examine the condition of agriculture in 

Michigan and identify the challenges and threats it 

faces. 

After receiving testimony from over 250 

persons, 

the 

task 

force produced 

a 

report on 

agriculture In the State. 

The report states that the 

farm sector Is In the worst condition it has been in 

since the mid-1980s; prices for many commodities 

are as low as they have been in decades; few young 

people 

are entering 

agriculture; 

and 

economic 

pressures on farmers and processing industries are 

causing agricultural resources, including land, to be 

removed from farm production. Thereportconcludes 

that the fundamental cause of these problems is low 

profits, and that policies designed to address the 

issues facing agriculture should focus 

on profitability. 

The report lists 12 specific recommendations for 

State action, Including reducing taxes, developing 

new tax credits and enhancing current credits, and 

protecting farms against certain State and local 

regulations. 

In regard to tax reduction, the report 

recommends that the assessment cap on agricultural 

property be maintained when agricultural property is 

transferred. 

Currently, under Article 9, Section 3 of the State 

Constitution, annual assessment increases on each 

parcel of properly (adjusted for additions and losses) 

are limited to the lesser of 5% or the rate of inflation. 

When 

property 

Is subsequently transferred 

(as 

defined by law), the assessed value reverts to 50% 

of true cash value (the State equalized valuation). 

As a result of the cap, each parcel has two values: 

the taxable value, which reflects the parcel's capped 

value and is the basis upon which taxes are levied; 

and the State equalized valuation (SEV), which isa 

measure of the value of the property on the open 

Page 10of 5 

market. Thus, in an area where the value of properly 

rises faster than the rate of inflation or 5% per year, 

a parcels taxable value will be lower than Its SEV, 

and this discrepancy will grow larger each year. 

When the property is transferred, the new owner 

must pay taxes based upon the property's SEV. 

It has been pointed out that this increase in property 

taxes can 

be 

particularly burdensome 

to those 

purchasing 

farm 

property, 

because such sales 

usually involve substantial tracts of valuable land. 

It 

has 

been 

suggested 

that, 

under 

certain 

circumstances, 

the 

assessment 

on 

transferred 

agricultural property should remain capped ifthe new 

owner keeps the property in agricultural use. 

In 

addition, 

since 

capping 

the 

assessment 

on 

transferred agricultural property will benefit the new 

owner, it has been suggested that the benefit should 

be recaptured if the property is converted to another 

use. 

CONTENT 

Senate Blil 709 amended the General Property 

Tax Act to specify that a transfer of ownership of 

property does not include a transfer of qualified 

agricultural property under certain conditions. 

(This means that annual assessment increases 

will remain limited to the lesser of 5% or the rate 

of Inflation and the assessed value will not revert 

to 50% of true cash value upon the transfer.) 

Property that ceases to be qualified agricultural 

property after it is transferred will be subject to a 

recapture tax. 

Senate 

Bill 

1246 created the 

“Agricultural Property Recapture Act” to impose 

a 

recapture 

tax 

on 

transferred 

agricultural 

property that is converted by a change in use so 

thatitis no longer qualified agricultural property; 

and to require that revenue from the recapture 

tax be deposited in the Agricultural Preservation 

sb709&1246/9900

Page 73

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-002

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-002 

Fund. The bills were tie-barred. 

Senate Bill 709 

The bill provides that a transfer of ownership of 

property does not include a transfer of “qualified 

agricultural property”, 

if the person to whom the 

properly is transferred files an affidavit with the 

assessor of the local tax collecting unit and with the 

register of deeds for the county In which the property 

is located, altesting that the property will remain 

qualified agricultural property. The affidavit must be 

in a form prescribed by the Depariment of Treasury. 

An owner of qualified agricultural property must 

inform a prospective buyer of the property that it is 

subject 

to 

the 

recapture 

tax, 

provided 

in 

the 

Agricultural Property Recapture Act, if the qualified 

agricultural property Is “converted by a change in 

use" (as defined in that Act). 

If property ceases lo be 

qualified agricultural property at any time after being 

transferred, it Is subject to the recapture tax, and the 

taxable value of the property, as of December 31 in 

the 

year 

it ceases 

to 

be 

qualified 

agricultural 

property, 

will 

be the properly's State equalized 

valuation. 

The 

bill provides 

that 

if the owner of qualified 

agricultural property files an affidavit attesting that 

the 

property 

will 

remain 

qualified 

agricultural 

property, and the property was qualified agricultural 

property for taxes levied in 1999 and each year 

thereafter, then the local tax collecting unit must 

revise the taxable value of the property to the taxable 

value that the property would have had if there had 

been no transfer of ownership of the properly, and 

there had been no adjustment of the property’s SEV, 

since December 31, 1999. 

If the taxable value of 

qualified agricultural property is adjusted according 

fo these provisions, the property's owner is not 

entitled to a refund for any properly taxes that were 

collected on the property before the adjustment was 

made. 

(Under the General Property Tax Act, “qualified 

agricultural property” is unoccupied properly and 

related buildings classified as agricultural, or other 

unoccupied properly and related buildings located on 

that property devoted primarily to agricultural use. 

Related buildings Include a residence occupied by a 

person who is employed in or actively involved in the 

agricultural 

use 

and 

who 

has 

not 

claimed 

a 

homestead exemption on other property. 

Property 

used 

for 

commercial 

storage, 

commercial 

processing, 

commercial 

distribution, 

commercial 

marketing, or commerclal shipping operations or 

other commercial 

or industrial purposes 

is 

not 

qualified agricultural property. A parcel of property is 

devoted primarily 

to agricultural use only if more than 

50% of its acreage is devoted to agricultural use.) 

Page 

2 of 5 

Senate Bill 1246 

The blll provides that beginning January 1, 2001, the 

agricultural property recapture tax will be imposed if 

property meets all of the following conditions: 

-- 

Itwas transferred after December 31, 1999. 

- 

It 

Is “converted 

by 

a change 

In 

use” 

after 

December 31, 2000. 

-- 

The taxable value 

of 

the 

property was 

not 

adjusted to its SEV after its iransfer, due to the 

provisions of Section 27a(7)(n) of the General 

Property Tax Act (under which 

a transfer of 

ownership does not include a transfer 

of qualified 

agricultural property if the new owner files an 

affidavit attesling that the properly will remain 

qualified agricultural property). 

Under the bill, “converted by a change in use” means 

either of the following: 

-- The property Is no longer considered qualified 

agricultural 

property 

as 

determined 

by 

the 

assessor of the local tax collecting unit, due to a 

change in use. 

-- The purchaser of qualified agricultural property, 

prior to a transfer, files a notice of intent to 

rescind 

the 

qualified 

agricultural 

properly 

exemption under Section 7ee of the General 

Properly Tax Act, and delivers a copy of that 

notice 

to the seller. 

(Section 7es exempts 

qualified agricultural property from local schoa! 

district operating millage, but requires an owner to 

rescind the exemption within 80 days after the 

exempted 

properly 

is 

no 

longer 

qualified 

agricultural 

property.) 

If 

the 

sale 

Is 

not 

consummated within 120 days of the filing of the 

notice, then the property is not converted by a 

change in use. 

The recapture tax imposed by the blll is “the bensfit 

received on the property”, which is calculated in the 

following manner: 

Benefit = Ax (B-C) 

“A” is the sum of the number of mills levied in the 

local tax collecting unit on the qualified agricultural 

property in each year of the “benefit period”. 

The 

“benefit pericd” is the period in years between the 

date of the first exempt transfer (a conveyance that 

is not a transfer of ownership pursuant to Section 

27a(7)(n) of the General Property Tax Act) and a 

conversion by a change in use, for up to seven years 

immediately preceding the yearin which the qualified 

agricultural property is converted by a change in use. 

“Bis the "true cash taxable value” of the property in 

each year of the benefit period. (“True cash taxable 

value” is the taxable value the property would have 

had if Section 27a(7)(n) were not In effect.) “C" is the 

sb709&1246/9900

Page 74

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-003

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-003 

property's taxable value. 

Under 

the 

bill, 

the 

determination 

of 

who 

is 

responsible for paying the recapture tax Is based 

upon how 

the 

qualified 

agricultural property 

is 

converted by a change in use. 

If the assessor of the 

local tax collecting unit determines that the property 

Is no longer qualified agricultural property due to a 

change in use, the recapture tax Is the obligation of 

the person who owned the properly at the time the 

property was converted by a change in use. The tax 

is a lien on the property until paid. 

If the recapture 

taxis not paid within 90 days of the date the properly 

was converted by a change In use, the treasurer may 

bring a civil action against the owner of the properly 

as of the date il was converied by a change in use. 

If the recapture tax remains unpald on March 1in the 

year immediately succeeding the year in which the 

property was converted by a change in use, the 

property must be returned 

as delinquent to the 

county lreasurer. 

Properly returned as delinquent, 

and upon which the recapture tax, interest, penalties, 

and fees remain unpaid 

after 

it 

is returned as 

delinquent to the county treasurer, 

Is subject to 

forfeiture, foreclosure, and sale for the enforcement 

and collection of the delinquent taxes as provided in 

the General Property Tax Act. 

If qualified agriculture properly is converted by a 

change in use because the purchaser files a notice 

of Intent to rescind the qualified agricultural property 

exemption, the recaplure tax is imposed on the 

person who owned the property before the transfer. 

The taxis due when the Instruments transferring the 

property are recorded with the register of deeds, who 

may 

not 

record 

an instrument transferring 

the 

property before the recapture tax is paid. 

The assessor of a local tax collecting unit must notify 

the county treasurer of the date qualified agricultural 

property is converted by a change in use. 

The county treasurer must collect the recapture tax 

and deposit it with the State Treasurer. By the 15th 

day of each month, on a form prescribed by the State 

Treasurer, the county treasurer must itemize the 

recapture taxes collected the preceding month and 

transmit 

the form 

and 

the 

taxes 

to 

the 

State 

Treasurer. 

The county treasurer may retain the 

interest earned on the money collected while held by 

the county treasurer as reimbursement for the costs 

incurred by the county in collecting and transmitting 

the tax. The money retained by the county treasurer 

must be deposited in the treasury of the county in 

Which the taxis collected, to the credit of the general 

und. 

The State Treasurer must credit the proceeds of the 

recapture tax collected by county lreasurers to the 

fund in which the proceeds from lien payments made 

Page 30of 5 

under Part 361 

of the 

Natural Resources and 

Environmental Protection Act are deposited. 

(Part 

361 provides for development rights agreements 

between landowners and the State, which restrict 

development on the land for a specified period of 

time In exchange for credits agalnst property taxes. 

The Slate may place a lien on the land, under certain 

circumstances, to recover the taxes if the land is 

removed 

from 

the 

confines 

of the agreement. 

Proceeds from lien payments are used by the State 

to purchase development rights and to administer 

Part 361. Beginning October 1, 2000, the unspent 

and unapproprlated proceeds fram lien payments 

made under Part 361 must be deposited 

in the 

Agricultural Preservation Fund (created by Pubtic Act 

262 of 2000). The Fund is to be used to administer 

Part 

361; 

to 

provide 

grants 

to 

local 

units 

of 

government 

for 

the 

purchase 

of 

“agricultural 

conservation easements”; and to enable the State to 

purchase 

development 

rights 

or 

agricullural 

conservation 

easements. 

An 

“agricultural 

conservation easement” is a conveyance of property 

in which the owner relinquishes to the public In 

perpetuity his or her development rights and makes 

a covenant running with the land not to undertake 

development.) 

The blll provides that it must be administered by the 

Revenue Division of the Department of Treasury. 

MCL 211.27a (S.B. 709) 

211.1001-211.1007 (S.B. 1246) 

ARGUME| 

(Please note: 

The arguments centeined in his enalysis 

originale from sources oulside the Senale Fiscal Agency. The 

Senale 

Fiscal 

Agency 

neither 

supports 

nor 

opposes 

leglstation.) 

Supporting Argument 

Farming remains an enormous part of the overall 

economy of Michigan. 

According to the Michigan 

Agriculture Statistics Service, the agricultural sector 

adds over $4 billion to the State's economy each 

year. Nevertheless, farmers are facing difficult times. 

Agricultural prices, adjusted for inflation, are at their 

lowest levels since the depression, according to the 

Agricultural Preservation Task Force report. Some 

focd processing plants have closed or moved out of 

the State. Low profitability in agricultural operations 

has caused many farmers to transfer thelr assets 

(land) to nonfarmers, usually developers. This has 

resulled In a steady reduction in the number of acres 

in farm production. Many people feel that this will 

hava long-term negative consequences for society in 

general, because it will reduce the nation's ability to 

provide food for an ever-increasing population, and 

increase U.S, dependence on foreign producers. 

$b709&1246/9900

Page 75

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-004

MTT Docket No. 24-003355 

December 5, 2025 

P10-004 

Since the 1994 passage 

of Proposal A, which 

created a new State school funding system, there 

has been an assessment cap that limits a parcels 

annual assessment increase to the rate of Inflation or 

5%, whichever is less. The assessment cap has led 

to substantial differences between the taxable value 

of farmland and its SEV (based on market value). 

While this has kept taxes lower than they otherwise 

would 

be, 

the 

cap 

Is 

lifted when 

properly 

is 

transferred. This means that if a young farmer wants 

to purchase 

a farm from 

a retiring farmer, the 

assessed value of the property--and the taxes on it-- 

will “pop up” upon transfer of the land. 

By ensuring that, when transferred, farm property will 

continue to be assessed based upon its capped 

value rather than its open-market value, Senate Bill 

709 will prevent farmers’ property taxes from rising 

dramatically, and thus will increase the farmers’ 

chances of remaining profitable. 

Supporting Argument 

Taxes must be included In the cost of production; 

therefore, higher taxes result in lower profits. 

In the 

case of a transferred farm In a developing area, an 

assessment based upon the SEV rather than the 

farm's 

value 

under 

the 

assessment 

cap 

may 

preclude future use of the land for farming; that Is, 

when the property is lransferred either by sale or to 

an heir, the new assessment may raise the properly 

taxes to the point at which the new owner can no 

longer make a viable profit by farming the land. The 

next 

logical 

step, 

then, 

is 

to 

sell 

the 

land 

to 

developers for residential, commercial, or industrial 

use, thus removing the land from farm production. 

Once this happens, the property is almost never 

returned to farmland. The State should take steps to 

ensure 

that agriculture remains 

a 

vital 

part 

of 

Michigan's economy, and to do that the Stale must 

do whatit can to help farmers. By implementing one 

of several recommendations made by the Task Force 

to provide substantial tax relief to farmers, Senate 

Bill 709 will help to keep farmland as farmland. 

Supporting Argument 

Senate Bill 1246 institutes a tax that, upon a change 

in use, will recapture any benefil (for up to seven 

years) that a farmer has realized as a result of 

keeping his or her land in agricultural use. 

This 

creates 

a substantial incentive 

for an owner of 

farmland fo keep it in agriculture. 

Opposing Argument 

The recapture tax provided for in Senate Bill 1246 

has generated criticism from both developers and 

preservationists. Some people oppose any form of 

recapture taxwhen agricullural property is converted 

by a change in use, arguing that it infringes upon 

owners’ property rights and restricts the owners’ 

ability to do as they wish with their property. Others 

Page 4 of 5 

Bill Analysis @ hitp:/Awww.state.ml.us/sfa 

argue that attempts to assist farmers through tax 

policy are diminished by a recapture tax, which 

penalizes not only those farmers who want to profit 

from the development of land, but the developers 

and 

all those who benefit directly and indirectly 

through 

the 

construction 

of 

residential 

and 

commercial 

areas. 

Still 

others 

contend 

that 

recapture tax revenues should not be placed in the 

new Agricultural Preservation Fund, to be used for 

the 

purpose 

of 

selting 

aside 

land 

for 

nondevelopment, because (fat will have the effect of 

reducing the availability of land for development and 

Increasing the cost of the fand that Is left. 

From another direction, others say that the recapture 

tax is inadequate; will do little to discourage the 

development 

of farmland; 

and 

in fact may 

(in 

conjunction 

with 

Senate 

Bill 

709) 

encourage 

developers to purchase farms now, keep them in 

farming lo lake advantage of the lower taxes, and 

develop the land 

later. 

Some belleve that the 

recapture tax should impose a higher penalty than 

Just a repayment of the benefit received, in order not 

only to provide a stronger Incentive to keep farmland 

In agricultural production, but also to supply the Fund 

with more money so that more land can be set aside 

for preservation. 

Legislative Analyst: G. Towne 

FISCAL IMPACT 

The provisions in Senate Bill 709 will reduce property 

taxes by an estimated $2.1 million in FY 2000-01. 

Local government property tax revenue will decline 

$0.9 million and property taxes collected by schools 

(K-12, intermediate school districts, and community 

colleges) will decrease $0.7 million from what they 

otherwise would 

be. 

State government will be 

affected 

by 

a 

$0.5 

million 

reduction 

In 

State 

education tax revenue, but also will have to pay an 

additional $0.2 million to reimburse K-12 schools for 

their loss In local property taxes due to the State’s 

guaranteed funding levels. The new recapture tax, 

which is created in Senate Bill 1246, is not expected 

to generate any meaningful amounts of revenue in 

FY 2000-01. 

Fiscal Analyst: 

J. Worlley 

AS800\s703ea 

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use 

by the Senate In is deliberations and does not constitute an 

official statement of leglslative intent. 

$b709&1246/9900

PDF reading copy

← View full record