Michigan

400 Trade Centre LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Portage Respondent

Petitioner: 400 Trade Centre LLC
Respondent: City Of Portage

Case overview

Docket number: 26-002649-TT
Status: Ready Sched Prehearing Date Certain
CaseType: ET Property
Division: ET
County: Kalamazoo
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
6	Prehearing General Call	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/01/2026	Not recorded	Download
5	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	08/06/2026	Not recorded	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download
4	Proof of service of petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	08/04/2026	Not recorded	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	07/13/2026	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number ET	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/13/2026	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	05/15/2026	$600.00	Download

Documents

Prehearing_General_Call.2026-09-01_11-45-10.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N GRAND RIVER AVE, LANSING, MI 48906

NOTICE OF AUGUST 2- 13, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF

PROCEDURE

400 Trade Centre LLC,

Petitioner,

City Of Portage,

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. 26-002649

Please be advised that 26-002649 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General

Call commencing August 02, 2027. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be notified at

least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not necessarily

occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure”

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing

for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A party, representative, or interested

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages

of the Tribunal’s website.

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002649

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures

by April 5, 2027. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless

disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though admissible)

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing

Statements by April 5, 2027. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on

April 5, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on

August 2, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that

date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s valuation

disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified on the

opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one

week before they are scheduled to appear.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: September 1, 2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 26-002649

Page 3 of 3

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N GRAND RIVER AVE, LANSING, MI 48906

NOTICE OF AUGUST 2- 13, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE

400

Page 5

MT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Answer to Petition 26-002649.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

400 Trade Center, LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Portage, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-002649 

 

Parcel No. 39-10-01900-150-E 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

DANIEL L STANLEY (P57052) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorney for Petitioner 

222 N. Washington Square 

Lansing, MI 48933 

(517) 377-0714 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent City of Portage, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 as to the parcel number and 

address of property, but lacks the information to respond to the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 1 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. There is only 1 parcel at issue in this case. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

Page 2

Respondent admits that subject property is classified as commercial real. With

respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner

to its proofs.

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but

denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit or that Petitioner is entitled to any relief as to those

issues.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for the reason that the

assessment is neither excessive nor erroneous and the property was correctly valued when the

assessment was determined.

Respondent denies that the assessment is not uniform, and denies that comparing

the subject to other properties, without identifying those properties, in the City of Portage is

relevant and denies that the comparison to the undefined greater Kalamazoo area or Michigan is

relevant, correct, or appropriate.

10.

Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in

Paragraph 10 for the reason that the properties are not identified with sufficient detail to respond,

and also denies that comparing the subject’s assessment to those properties is relevant or

appropriate.

11.

Respondent denies that the subject’s assessment is incorrect or not-uniform.

Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the remainder of the allegations in

Page 3

Paragraph 11 for the reason that the properties are not identified and denies that said

comparisons are relevant or appropriate.

12.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 for the reason that the same are

untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed

permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were

correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values

and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional.

13.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13, including subparagraphs, for

the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or

taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value

permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper

principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and

constitutional.

14.

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph

of the Petition, but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in

the above Paragraphs.

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Portage requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition,

affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and

award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.

Page 4

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257)

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

Attorneys for Respondent

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

Dated: August 6, 2026

(248) 731-3089

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent City of Portage asserts the following affirmative defenses:

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767

(1981).

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See

MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974).

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error

of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent or

its agents.

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject

property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the

Page 5

5

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient

Page 6

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

EntireTribunalCaseISAnswer.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-002649

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

City Of Portage (KALAMAZOO)

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates PC

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3089

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

mtt@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Seth A. O'Loughlin

/s/

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

400 Trade Centre POS.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

400 Trade Centre LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MTT Docket No. 

2 -pOA 49 

[Parcel No(s). 39-10-01900-150-E] 

Portage, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Lisa Joseph states that she is employed by HONIGMAN LLP, attorneys for Petitioner, and 

that on 

)) / Y /2 pe 

, she did serve a copy of Petitioner's Petition, with docket number, upon 

the parties named on the attached list. 

/5 

pan 

Lisa J oseph 

26-0017 

75542408.1

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

CLERK 

PORTAGE 

7900 S. WESTNEDGE AVENUE 

PORTAGE, MI 49002 

ASSESSOR 

PORTAGE 

7900 S. WESTNEDGE AVENUE 

PORTAGE, MI 49002 

AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

CLERK 

KALAMAZOO COUNTY 

201 W. KALAMAZOO AVENUE 

KALAMAZOO, MI 49007-3726 

DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZATION 

KALAMAZOO COUNTY 

201 W. KALAMAZOO AVENUE 

KALAMAZOO, MI 49007-3726 

SECRETARY OF SCHOOL BOARD 

PORTAGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

8111 S. WESTNEDGE AVENUE 

PORTAGE, MI 49002-5433 

STATE TREASURER 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

TREASURY BUILDING 

430 W. ALLEGAN ST. 

LANSING, MI 48922 

26-0017 

75542408.1

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SubsequentFiling.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-002649

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition

Attachment File Name: 400 Trade Centre POS

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

400 Trade Centre LLC.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

\ a 

MAY 152026 \O 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

400 Trade Centre LLC, 

Petitioner, 

\2 

MTT Docket No. 

[Parcel No(s). 39-10-01900-150-E] 

Portage, 

Respondent. 

Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) 

franInfo: 606 26120476-1 5i/tey6 

Honigman LLP 

pu: 040711 

Ant: $600.00 

Attorney for Petitioner 

HOHIGHAN LLP 

222 N. Washington Square 

Suite 400 

Lansing, MI 48933 

(517) 377-0714 

dstanley@honigman.com 

PETITION 

400 Trade Centre LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, HONIGMAN LLP, says: 

Ls 

Petitioner's principal office address is 750 Trade Center Way, Suite 1000, Portage, 

MI 49002. 

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel no(s). 39- 

10-01900-150-E ("Petitioner's Property"), at 400 Trade Centre W. located in Kalamazoo County, 

Michigan. 

If this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the tax parcels are 

contiguous.

Page 2

In 2026, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be

$3,941,979 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $4,819,000, which will result in a state equalized

value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor.

Petitioner's Property

is classified as Commercial Real.

Petitioner's Property

presently used or available for use for hotel purposes and is commonly referred to as the Marriott

Courtyard Portage. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used

for hotel purposes.

This matter involves issues relating to:

(a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable

value and (d) uniformity.

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute

relative to the value of a loss.

Petitioner filed a board of review protest in March, 2026.

A copy of Petitioner’s

Board of Review protest is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Respondent’s assessment of Petitioner’s property

is excessive and

erroneous

because, among other reasons, the values

in Respondent’s assessment are based upon

a cost

approach assuming that Petitioner’s property is a Class C Full Service Hotel for cost purposes

when Petitioner’s property is a Class D Limited Service Hotel.

Respondent’s assessment of Petitioner’s property is much higher than comparable

hotel properties in the City of Portage, the greater Kalamazoo area in which Petitioner’s hotel

property competes, and the State of Michigan.

Page 3

Li, 

Respondent’s assessment 

is 

a clear statistical outlier. Petitioner’s property 

is 

assessed at approximately $53,544 per room, more than double the median assessed value of the 

20 other comparable Marriott Courtyard hotels across Michigan ($25,895 per room). 

It also 

materially exceeds the assessed values of all other limited-service hotels in the City of Portage and 

the greater Kalamazoo market. 

12. 

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed 

on Petitioner's Property are erroneous and excessive. 

13. 

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed 

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful 

and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

(a) 

The assessment, 

including 

state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at 

higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are 

based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's 

Property that 

is taxable under Michigan 

law, and are based upon the application of wrong 

principles; and, 

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and

Page 4

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order reducing the 2026 

taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $3,941,979 to $2,700,000, and reducing the 2026 

assessed and state equalized value of Petitioner's Property from $4,819,000 to $2,700,000, and 

requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest 

and costs. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By: /s/ Daniel L. Stanley 

Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) 

222 North Washington Square 

Suite 400 

Lansing, MI 48933-1800 

(517) 377-0714 

dstanley@honigman.com 

Dated: May 15,2026

Page 5

Docusign Envelope ID; 6E84223C-3000-8F17-81FD-CB78816A7TATA 

BPORTAGE 

818%) 4 Natural Place to Move 

Agent Authorization 

A completed Agent Authorization form or a letter of authorization must accompany all letters of appeal 

to the City of Portage Board of Review for which the property owner authorizes a third party to act as 

an agent on behalf of the property owner. Any communications will continue to be sent to the address of 

the property owner, not the Authorized Agent. 

400 Trade Centre LLC (Roger Hinman & Joe Gesmundo) rs 

Printed Name(s) of Property Owner(s) of Record 

Rich MacDonald 750 Trade Centre Way, Suite 100, Portage MI 49002, 269-488-3651 

Printed Name, Address and Telephone Number of Authorized Agent 

I (we). 

to act on my (our) behalf in the matter of protesting my (our) real and personal property assessed 

valuation for. 2026 

for property 

| (we) own addressed as: 

Year 

400 Trade Centre Way 

Portage 

MI 

49002 

Address 

3Cp ~ fp 

City 

State 

Zip Code 

01900-150-E 

750 Trade Centre Way, Suite 100 

Tax Parcel No. 

Property Owner Mailing Address 

269-342-8600 

Portage 

Mi 

49002 

Property Owner Telephone Number 

City 

State 

Zip Code 

3/9/2026 

Signatur BFPIEPEAy Owner 

Date 

pa 

: 

3/9/2026 

€. timan, 

Ra 

Date 

Letters of Appeal to the Board of Review and Agent Authorizations must be received in

Page 6

Mi

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

ET_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2026-07-13_17-49-10.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

400 Trade Centre LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

MTT Docket No.: 26-002649

City Of Portage,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition.

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice.

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: July 13, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

City Of Portage