7322 Newman LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Scio Respondent

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 SEPTEMBER 16- 30, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

7322 Newman LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

Township Of Scio,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 26-000572

Please be advised that 26-000572 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing September 16, 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covered by the order will not be published.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. 26-000572

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 May 20, 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 May 20, 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 

May 20, 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 

September 16, 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

Page 3

M

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.

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

7322 Newman LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000572

Township Of Scio,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Respondent was held in 

default on July 27, 2026, and the default has been timely cured. The documents curing 

the default can be reviewed through the docket search function on the Tribunal’s 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket number and clicking on the 

document link next to the line item entry for the documents. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: October 2, 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

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

7322 Newman LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000572

Township Of Scio,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Respondent was held in 

default on July 27, 2026, and the default has been timely cured. The documents curing 

the default can be reviewed through the docket search function on the Tribunal’s 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket number and clicking on the 

document link next to the line item entry for the documents. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: October 2, 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

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.

Page 1

1 

 

 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

7322 Newman LLC 

 Petitioner, 

 

 

 MTT Docket No:26-000572 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX CASE 

 

Scio Township, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________/ 

 

Hallahan & Associate, PC 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Rd. Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

FINK & FINK, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Mariah Evans Fink (P73757) 

3258 Broad St. 

 

 

Dexter, MI 48130 

Telephone (734) 426-7901 

Mariah.fink@finkandfink.com 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

On June 18, 2026, I served Respondent’s Answer and Appearance of counsel on 

Petitioner’s counsel at her mailing address above by regular mail. 

FINK & FINK, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

BY: 

/s/ Mariah Evans Fink 

MARIAH EVANS FINK (P73757) 

Dated: June 18, 2026

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.

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: 26-000572

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

Party Filing Document 

Respondent

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Misc Documents

Attachment File Name: Proof of Service 6.18.26

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.

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

7322 Newman LLC,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000572

Township Of Scio,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

Respondent failed to file proof evidencing service of the answer. As such, Respondent 

must submit proof of service within 14 days of the entry of this order. See TTR 227. 

Tribunal rules and information on Entire Tribunal answers can be found on our website 

at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.1 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: July 27, 2026

1 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000572

Page 2 of 2

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 3

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

7322 Newman LLC,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000572

Township Of Scio,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

Respondent failed to file proof evidencing service of the answer. As such, Respondent 

must submit proof of service within 14 days of the entry of this order. See TTR 227. 

Tribunal rules and information on Entire Tribunal answers can be found on our website 

at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.2 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: July 27, 2026

2 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A

Page 4

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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

7322 Newman LLC, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

vs. 

 

Scio Township, 

Respondent.

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000572 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(Property Tax Petition) 

 

On the date below I sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Petition to: 

 

Township Assessor 

Scio Township 

827 N Zeeb Rd 

Ann Arbor, MI 48103-1599 

Township Supervisor 

Scio Township 

827 N Zeeb Rd 

Ann Arbor, MI 48103-1599 

 

On the date below I sent by first class mail a copy of the Petition to: 

 

Equalization Director 

Washtenaw County 

200 N Main St, Suite 210 

PO Box 8645 

Ann Arbor, MI 48107-8645 

County Clerk 

Washtenaw County 

200 N Main St 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

Secretary, Board of Education 

Dexter Community Schools 

2704 Baker Rd 

Dexter, MI 48130 

State Treasurer 

Department of Treasury 

430 W Allegan Street 

Lansing, MI 48922 

 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Dated: June 30, 2026

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

7322 Newman LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

Scio Township, 

Respondent. 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Docket No. 26-000572______ 

Parcel No. 08-17-200-016 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 

Petitioner, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., contends: 

1.

☒ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel:

Parcel Number 

08-17-200-016

Address 

7322 Newman Blvd 

Classification 

201 Comm Imp 

Use 

Industrial 

County 

Washtenaw 

Sch Dist Dexter 

Community 

School 

District 

2.

☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s:

☐March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review.

3.

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property.

4.

Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject

property.

5.

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 29355 Northwestern Highway,

Suite 301, Southfield, MI 48034.

6.

This appeal involves issues related to:

☒

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values

☐

the subject property’s taxable value only

there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No

☐

uniformity of the subject property’s assessment

☐

the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______

Page 3

Petition 

2 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2026. 

8. 

The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

6,460,000 

3,230,000 

2,171,797 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

3,400,000 

1,700,000 

1,700,000 

10. 

The values1 in dispute are. 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

3,060,000 

1,530,000 

471,797 

11. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values 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 assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established 

by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable 

to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

 

1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.

Page 4

Petition 

3 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Laura

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.

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: 26-000572

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: Petition - 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.

Page 1

1 

 

 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

7322 Newman LLC 

 Petitioner, 

 

 

 MTT Docket No:26-000572 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX CASE 

 

Scio Township, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________/ 

 

Hallahan & Associate, PC 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Rd. Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3087 

FINK & FINK, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Mariah Evans Fink (P73757) 

3025 Miller Rd 

 

 

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 

Telephone (734) 994-1077 

Mariah.fink@finkandfink.com 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

Respondent, Scio Township, by its attorneys, FINK & FINK, PLLC, answers the Petition 

as follows: 

1. 

Admit. 

2. 

Admit. 

3. 

Admit. 

4. 

Admit.

Page 2

2 

5. 

Respondent assumes that this information regarding Petitioner’s office address is correct. 

6. 

Admit. 

7. 

Admit. 

8. 

Admit. 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges that this allegation contains Petitioner’s contention; however, 

Respondent denies that these values are accurate. 

10. 

Admit that Petitioner’s calculations are correct. 

11. 

Denied for the reason that this allegation and its subparts are not true as follows: 

 

a. Respondent’s assessment of the property complies with the statutes and constitutional 

limitations on assessments. 

 

b. Respondent’s assessment is not more than 50% of the true cash value and complies with 

the statutes and constitutional limitations on assessments. 

 

c. Respondent’s assessment is proper based on the standard practices for determining 

assessments in Michigan. 

 

d. Respondent’s assessment of Petitioner’s property does not discriminate against 

Petitioner because it is not at a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment 

within the assessment district and the assessment was determined using the same standard 

practice for all properties in the assessment district.

Page 3

3 

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Petition be denied, that the assessment be sustained, and 

the Respondent granted its attorney fees and costs of suit. 

FINK & FINK, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

BY: 

/s/ Mariah Evans Fink 

MARIAH EVANS FINK (P73757) 

Dated: June 9, 2026

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.

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. 26-000572

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

Township Of Scio (WASHTENAW)

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

Mariah

M.I.

Evans

Last Name

Fink

Firm Name (if any)

Fink & Fink, PLLC

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

3025 Miller Rd

City or Town

Ann Arbor

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48103

Telephone Number

734-994-1077

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

mariah.fink@finkandfink.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Mariah Evans Fink

/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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

 

7322 Newman LLC, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

Scio Township, 

 

Respondent. 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Docket No. 26-_____________ 

Parcel No. 08-17-200-016 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 

 

Petitioner, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., contends: 

1. 

☒ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: 

Parcel Number 

08-17-200-016 

Address 

7322 Newman Blvd 

Classification 

201 Comm Imp 

Use 

Industrial 

County 

Washtenaw 

Sch Dist Dexter 

Community 

School 

District 

 

2. 

☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: 

☐ March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review. 

3. 

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 

4. 

Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject 

property. 

5. 

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 29355 Northwestern Highway, 

Suite 301, Southfield, MI 48034. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

☒ 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values 

☐ 

the subject property’s taxable value only 

 

there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No 

☐ 

uniformity of the subject property’s assessment 

☐ 

the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______

Page 2

Petition 

2 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2026. 

8. 

The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

6,460,000 

3,230,000 

2,171,797 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

3,400,000 

1,700,000 

1,700,000 

10. 

The values1 in dispute are. 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

3,060,000 

1,530,000 

471,797 

11. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values 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 assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established 

by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable 

to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

 

1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.

Page 3

Petition 

3 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

Dated: April 10, 2026 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com 

 

Filing Fee: $600

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.

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

7322 Newman LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-000572

Township Of Scio, 

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: May 27, 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

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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

 

7322 Newman LLC, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

Scio Township, 

 

Respondent. 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Docket No. 26-_____________ 

Parcel No. 08-17-200-016 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 

 

Petitioner, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., contends: 

1. 

☒ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: 

Parcel Number 

08-17-200-016 

Address 

7322 Newman Blvd 

Classification 

201 Comm Imp 

Use 

Industrial 

County 

Washtenaw 

Sch Dist Dexter 

Community 

School 

District 

 

2. 

☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: 

☐ March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review. 

3. 

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 

4. 

Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject 

property. 

5. 

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 29355 Northwestern Highway, 

Suite 301, Southfield, MI 48034. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

☒ 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values 

☐ 

the subject property’s taxable value only 

 

there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No 

☐ 

uniformity of the subject property’s assessment 

☐ 

the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______

Page 2

Petition 

2 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2026. 

8. 

The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

6,460,000 

3,230,000 

2,171,797 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

3,400,000 

1,700,000 

1,700,000 

10. 

The values1 in dispute are. 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

08-17-200-016 

3,060,000 

1,530,000 

471,797 

11. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values 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 assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established 

by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable 

to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

 

1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.

Page 3

Petition 

3 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

Dated: April 10, 2026 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com 

 

Filing Fee: $600

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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

7322 Newman LLC

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

29355 Northwestern highway, Suite 301

City or Town

Southfield

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48034-1045

Telephone Number

2487018529

Fax Number

48324

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

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

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

248-731-3087

Fax Number

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

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

7322 Newman

Scio Township

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Scio (WASHTENAW)

County

Washtenaw

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

(*If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

08-17-200-016

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review:

3230000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

2171797

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

3400000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

1700000

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

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

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

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of 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 each additional parcel being appealed.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Laura M Hallahan

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.