Ahmed And Husna; Mohammed Arif; Syed Petitioner Vs. City Of Grand Blanc 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 JULY 1- 15, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE

Ahmed and Husna; Mohammed Arif; 

Syed,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 26-000496

Please be advised that 26-000496 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing July 01, 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covered by the order will not be published.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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000496

Page 2 of 3

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

website for more information.

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 March 4, 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 March 4, 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 

March 4, 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 

July 1, 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

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 26-000496

Page 3 of 3

Entered: August 3, 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 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 JULY 1- 15, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF

Page 5

MTT

Page 6

MTT

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

CLINE, CLINE 

REC 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

(5S | &criFFIN 

EVD 

prem, 

Premier 

legal expertise and service since 1928 

JUN 2 6 2026 

pel on id 

R. Paul Vance 

M 

R. Muld 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Nancy X. Chinonis 

Eric M. Froats 

Elisabeth A. Mcllhargie 

* Also admitted in Texas 

Howard D. Cline (1903-1965) 

Earl J. Cline (1931-2002) 

Howard D. Cline (1933-2020) 

June 24, 2026 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

VIA UPS OVERNIGHT 

Attn: 

Clerk 

1033 S. Washington Ave. 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Ahmed and Husna Arif and Mohammed and 

Nayyer Syed vs vs City of Grand Blanc 

Docket No.:26-000496-TT 

Property ID No. 56-15-200-011 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed please find an original and one (1) copy of an Appearance on behalf 

of Respondent, 

City 

of Grand 

Blanc, 

along 

with Respondents Answer 

to 

Entire 

Tribunal 

Property Tax Petition 

and 

a 

Proof of Service, 

to 

be 

filed 

in 

the above 

matter. Please return 

a time-stamped copy to our office in the enclosed stamped, 

self-addressed envelope. 

Thank you for your courtesies in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

CLINE, CLINE & 

GRIFFIN 

Mare

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

AHMED and HUSNA ARIF, and 

MOHAMMED and NAYYER SYED, 

MTT Docket No. 26-000496 

Property ID No. 56-15-200-011 

Petitioners, 

v. 

CITY OF GRAND BLANC, 

Respondent. 

HERTZ SCHRAM, PC 

CLINE, CLINE & GRIFFIN, P.C. 

EVA CANTARELLA (P51917) 

WALTER P. GRIFFIN (P14383) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

MEGAN R. MULDER (P77597) 

1760 S. Telegraph Rd., Ste. 300 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

503 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 1000 

(248) 335-5000 

Flint, MI 48502 

(810) 232-3141 

APPEARANCE 

TO: 

Ahmed and Husna Arif and Mohammed and Nayyer Syed 

c/o Eva Cantarella 

Hertz Schram, PC 

1760 S. Telegraph Rd., Ste. 300 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

NOW COMES Cline, Cline & Griffin, P.C., specifically Walter P. Griffin and Megan R, 

Mulder, and hereby enters its Appearance on behalf of Respondent, City of Grand Blanc, in the 

above-captioned matter. 

CLINE, CLINE & GRIFFIN, P.C. 

Dated: June 23, 2026 

Mess ye

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

AHMED and HUSNA ARIF, and 

MOHAMMED and NAYYER SYED, 

MTT Docket No. 26-000496 

Property ID No. 56-15-200-011 

Petitioners, 

v. 

CITY OF GRAND BLANC, 

Respondent. 

HERTZ SCHRAM, PC 

CLINE, CLINE & GRIFFIN, P.C. 

EVA CANTARELLA (P51917) 

WALTER P. GRIFFIN (P14383) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

MEGAN R. MULDER (P77597) 

1760 S. Telegraph Rd., Ste. 300 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

503 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 1000 

(248) 335-5000 

Flint, MI 48502 

(810) 232-3141 

ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

NOW COMES Respondent, The City of Grand Blanc, (hereinafter Respondent), by and 

through its counsel, CLINE, CLINE & GRIFFIN, P.C., reserving all rights to file a Motion to 

Dismiss said Petition for reason of its failure to state a valid claim and for other reasons as may 

be made known by discovery, answers the allegations as set forth in the Petition as follows: 

I. 

In answering 

the 

allegation contained 

in paragraph 

1, 

or 

lack of sufficien 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither admits nor denies 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

2. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

2, upon information and

Page 4

10. 

taxes 

on 

the 

Subject 

Property. 

Respondent 

neither 

admits 

nor 

denies 

any 

remaining allegations, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

4, upon information and 

belief, Respondent admits the same as true. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

5, upon information and 

belief, Respondent admits that the property is classified as Commercial Improved) 

Respondent 

neither 

admits 

nor 

denies 

the 

remaining 

allegations, 

leaving 

Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

6, upon information and 

belief, Respondent admits the same as true. 

In answering the allegations contained in paragraph 7, Respondent denies there 

are any issues related to the valuation, assessment, or taxable value. 

As to any 

remaining allegations, for lack of sufficient information upon which to form 

a 

belief, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same, leaving Petitioners to their 

strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained in paragraph 

8, upon information and 

belief, Respondent admits the same as true. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

9, 

for lack of sufficient 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither admits nor denies] 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

10, upon information and

Page 5

12, 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

In answering the allegations contained in paragraph 

12, Respondent denies thg 

allegations as stated. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

13, for 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

14, for 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained in paragraph 

15, for 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained 

in paragraph 

16, for 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations contained in paragraph 

17, for 

information upon which to form a belief, Respondent neither 

the same, leaving Petitioners to their strict proofs. 

In answering the allegations

Page 6

20. 

In

Page 7

ST

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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and

Mohammed and Nayyar Syed,

Petitioners,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26-000496

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

City of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR PETITION WITH DOCKET NUMBER

I hereby certify that on June 3, 2026, I caused the above-referenced Petition with docket number to

be served on the following individuals and entities and in the following manner:

via Certified Mail

Assessor, City of Grand Blanc 

203 E. Grand Blanc Road

Grand Blanc, MI 48439

Clerk, City of Grand Blanc

203 E. Grand Blanc Road

Grand Blanc, MI 48439

via First Class Mail

Director, Genesee County Equalization

County Administration Building

1101 Beach Street, Room 206

Flint, MI 48502-1468

Clerk, Genesee County

County Courthouse, 2nd Floor

900 S. Saginaw St

Flint, MI 48502

1

Page 2

Secretary, Grand Blanc Community Schools Board

11920 South Saginaw Street

Grand Blanc, MI 48439

State Treasurer, Michigan Dept. of Treasury

Treasury Building

430 W. Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48922

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

2

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 of 1

Docket #: 26-000496

Party Filing Document

Party Filing Document: 

 Petitioner

 Petitioner

 

 

If 'other', Identify: 

File

Document Type: 

 

 

fuFile:

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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and

Mohammed and Nayyar Syed,

Petitioners,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26_________

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

City of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and Mohammed and Nayyar Syed (“Petitioners”), through their

attorney Eva Cantarella at the law firm Hertz Schram PC, petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

Petitioners are individuals whose business address with respect to the Subject

Property is 2597 S. Shore Drive, Flushing, MI 48433-3515.

2.

The Subject Property is a two-story, six-unit, office building built in 1975 containing

14,416 square feet of gross leaseable space, situated on 2.93 acres located at 500 Perry Road, Grand

Blanc, Michigan, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 56-15-200-011.

3.

Petitioners are the parties in interest, as Petitioners are responsible for paying the

property taxes on the Subject Property.

4.

Respondent City of Grand Blanc levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject

Property.

5.

The Subject Property is classified 201 Commercial Improved and was built for its

current use as an office building.

1

Page 2

6.

The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is in the Grand Blanc

Community Schools school district.

7.

This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable

value.

8.

For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values for the Subject Property:

Respondent’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

$1,086,800

$1,086,800

$1,081,093

9.

Petitioners did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the City of Grand Blanc 

Board of Review.

10.

Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined the

Subject Property’s true cash value to equal $2,173,600, which equates to $150.78/square foot

[$2,173,600 / 14,416 SF = $150.78].

11.

For the following reasons, Petitioners contend Respondent has over-valued the

Subject Property.

12.

Comparable sales indicate the Subject Property should be valued at approximately

$90/square foot, or $1,300,000 (rounded).

13.

Petitioners paid $1 million for the Subject Property in 2022.

14.

Although four of the six units were rented for most of 2025, on tax day only three of

the units totaling 9,072 SF (63%) were rented, leaving 5,344 SF (37%) vacant.

2

Page 3

15.

Additionally, in early February 2026, the tenant in Suite 202, which has 2,443 SF,

notified Petitioners that it would vacate its space by April 5, 2026. This has increased the vacancy

rate to 54%.

16.

Petitioners have made no major improvements to the Subject Property other than to

replace the roof in 2023 (cost $28,093), repair interior damage caused by the storm that necessitated

the new roof (cost $10,187), replace one HVAC unit (cost $8,557), and repair a second HVAC (cost

$4,750)–for total cost of $51,587. Much work is still needed and the property also suffers from major

incurable drawbacks, as detailed below.

17.

Exterior: (i) The asphalt driveway and parking lot are severely degraded and need

to be completely resurfaced [estimated cost: $150,000]; (ii) the lengthy metal railing that surrounds

much of the building is in poor condition, rusty, and needs to be replaced [estimated cost: $90,000];

and (iii) much of the stone-in-cement work on the driveway side of building needs to be re-done.

18.

Interior: There is no elevator and no interior stairs to the 2nd floor, meaning the 2nd

floor can only be accessed by exterior stairs; and all vacant space, which is on the 2nd floor, is in fair

condition, needing a complete paint job, much drywall repair, much ceiling tile repair/replace; and

all flooring replaced.

19.

Given the foregoing, Petitioners contend the 2026 true cash value of the Subject

Property is $1,300,000 and therefore the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values should

be as follows:

Petitioner’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

$650,000

$650,000

$650,000

3

Page 4

20.

Petitioners are unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition”

or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value.

21.

Should Petitioners hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioners reserve

the right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute.

22.

Petitioners request that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026

assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by

Petitioners, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioners any refunds attributable to such

reductions, plus allowable interest and costs.

Respectfully submitted

Hertz Schram PC

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

Attorney for Petitioners

1760 S. Telegraph Road

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346

ecantarella@hertzschram.com 

4

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

Ahmed and Husna; Mohammed Arif; Syed, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-000496

City of Grand Blanc, 

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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and

Mohammed and Nayyar Syed,

Petitioners,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26_________

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

City of Grand Blanc,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

Ahmed and Husna Arif, and Mohammed and Nayyar Syed (“Petitioners”), through their

attorney Eva Cantarella at the law firm Hertz Schram PC, petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

Petitioners are individuals whose business address with respect to the Subject

Property is 2597 S. Shore Drive, Flushing, MI 48433-3515.

2.

The Subject Property is a two-story, six-unit, office building built in 1975 containing

14,416 square feet of gross leaseable space, situated on 2.93 acres located at 500 Perry Road, Grand

Blanc, Michigan, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 56-15-200-011.

3.

Petitioners are the parties in interest, as Petitioners are responsible for paying the

property taxes on the Subject Property.

4.

Respondent City of Grand Blanc levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject

Property.

5.

The Subject Property is classified 201 Commercial Improved and was built for its

current use as an office building.

1

Page 2

6.

The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is in the Grand Blanc

Community Schools school district.

7.

This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable

value.

8.

For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values for the Subject Property:

Respondent’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

$1,086,800

$1,086,800

$1,081,093

9.

Petitioners did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the City of Grand Blanc 

Board of Review.

10.

Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined the

Subject Property’s true cash value to equal $2,173,600, which equates to $150.78/square foot

[$2,173,600 / 14,416 SF = $150.78].

11.

For the following reasons, Petitioners contend Respondent has over-valued the

Subject Property.

12.

Comparable sales indicate the Subject Property should be valued at approximately

$90/square foot, or $1,300,000 (rounded).

13.

Petitioners paid $1 million for the Subject Property in 2022.

14.

Although four of the six units were rented for most of 2025, on tax day only three of

the units totaling 9,072 SF (63%) were rented, leaving 5,344 SF (37%) vacant.

2

Page 3

15.

Additionally, in early February 2026, the tenant in Suite 202, which has 2,443 SF,

notified Petitioners that it would vacate its space by April 5, 2026. This has increased the vacancy

rate to 54%.

16.

Petitioners have made no major improvements to the Subject Property other than to

replace the roof in 2023 (cost $28,093), repair interior damage caused by the storm that necessitated

the new roof (cost $10,187), replace one HVAC unit (cost $8,557), and repair a second HVAC (cost

$4,750)–for total cost of $51,587. Much work is still needed and the property also suffers from major

incurable drawbacks, as detailed below.

17.

Exterior: (i) The asphalt driveway and parking lot are severely degraded and need

to be completely resurfaced [estimated cost: $150,000]; (ii) the lengthy metal railing that surrounds

much of the building is in poor condition, rusty, and needs to be replaced [estimated cost: $90,000];

and (iii) much of the stone-in-cement work on the driveway side of building needs to be re-done.

18.

Interior: There is no elevator and no interior stairs to the 2nd floor, meaning the 2nd

floor can only be accessed by exterior stairs; and all vacant space, which is on the 2nd floor, is in fair

condition, needing a complete paint job, much drywall repair, much ceiling tile repair/replace; and

all flooring replaced.

19.

Given the foregoing, Petitioners contend the 2026 true cash value of the Subject

Property is $1,300,000 and therefore the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values should

be as follows:

Petitioner’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 56-15-200-011

$650,000

$650,000

$650,000

3

Page 4

20.

Petitioners are unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition”

or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value.

21.

Should Petitioners hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioners reserve

the right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute.

22.

Petitioners request that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026

assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by

Petitioners, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioners any refunds attributable to such

reductions, plus allowable interest and costs.

Respectfully submitted

Hertz Schram PC

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

Attorney for Petitioners

1760 S. Telegraph Road

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346

ecantarella@hertzschram.com 

4

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: Individual

First Name/Company Name

Ahmed and Husna; Mohammed and Nayyar

M.I.

Last Name

Arif; Syed

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

2597 S. Shore Drive

City or Town

Flushing

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48433-3515

Telephone Number

810-210-1597

Fax Number

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

aarif70@hotmail.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Eva

M.I.

T

Last Name

Cantarella

Firm Name (if any)

Hertz Schram PC

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

1760 S Telegraph Rd Ste 300

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302-0183

Telephone Number

248-335-5000

Fax Number

248-335-3346

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

ecantarella@hertzschram.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]

500 Perry

Grand Blanc

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City of Grand Blanc (GENESEE)

County

Genesee

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:

56-15-200-011

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

1086800

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

1081093

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

1300000

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

650000

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/ Eva T Cantarella

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.