Alex Kalani Petitioner Vs. Township Of Rich Respondent
- Petitioner
- Alex Kalani
- Respondent
- Township Of Rich
Case overview
- Docket number
- 26-002453-TT
- Status
- Disposed
- CaseType
- ET Property
- Division
- ET
- County
- Lapeer
- Judge
- No judge assigned
Docket history
| Line # | Subject | Filer | Line Ref | Enter Date/Post Mark | Fee | Related Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Order of Dismissal | Not recorded | Not recorded | 08/03/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 3 | Petition has been verified | PET | 1 | 08/03/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 2 | Notice of Docket Number ET | Not recorded | Not recorded | 08/03/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 1 | A petition was received. | PET | Not recorded | 06/25/2026 | $150.00 | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
Documents
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 Alex Kalani, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ENTIRE TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No. 26-002453 Township Of Rich, Respondent. ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that: Petitioner is attempting to appeal the classification of the property. The Tribunal has no authority over classification appeals, which are within the jurisdiction of the State Tax Commission pursuant to MCL 211.34c(6). See also MCL 205.731. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-002453 Page 2 of 2 Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 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 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 Alex Kalani, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ENTIRE TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No. 26-002453 Township Of Rich, Respondent. ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that: Petitioner is attempting to appeal the classification of the property. The Tribunal has no authority over classification appeals, which are within the jurisdiction of the State Tax Commission pursuant to MCL 211.34c(6). See also MCL 205.731. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case. APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 26-002453 Page 2 of 2 Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 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 provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized representatives. By: Tribunal Clerk
Page 5
STATE OF
Page 6
MTT Docket
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.
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
Michigan Tax Tribunal – Small Claims Division Classification Appeal Packet Parcel: 44-018-013-017-00 Property Address: 8674 Silverwood Rd, Rich Township, Sanilac County Owner: Kalani Alex H Revocable Trust Prepared by: Alex Kalani Cover Letter Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: Small Claims Petition — Classification Appeal Parcel: 44-018-013-017-00 Owner: Kalani Alex H Revocable Trust To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed is a Small Claims Petition appealing the improper reclassification of the above parcel. The property was classified as Agricultural (101) for more than 25 years, despite never being used for row crops or commercial farming. The assessor reclassified the property in September 2022, the same month it was purchased, without inspection, without identifying any change in use, and without maintaining required documentation, as confirmed by a FOIA denial. The Board of Review denied the appeal using the incorrect “50% farming” standard, which applies only to the Qualified Agricultural Exemption. The Board did not review the evidence submitted, did not apply MCL 211.34c, and was influenced by the assessor during the hearing. One Board member had personal involvement with the property, including hunting it during 2023, 2024, and 2025, and meeting with me between 2022 and 2025 regarding improvements, yet did not disclose this or recuse himself. This appeal seeks correction of the classification to Agricultural (101). Respectfully,
Page 2
Alex Kalani Petition Narrative This section includes the nature of the appeal, statement of the issue, and relief requested. Statement of Facts This section includes all factual background, including parcel history, reclassification, and interactions with officials. Additional facts include the township clerk’s FOIA denial, lack of township records, and audit log irregularities. Affidavit Regarding Caregiving Years This affidavit affirms that the petitioner served as a full-time caregiver for his father from 2021 through September 2025. Legal Argument This section includes all legal arguments, including statutory violations, improper standards, and assessor misconduct. Includes assessor’s 'market value' justification, 'hidden for 25 years' claim, and FOIA denial implications. Affidavit of No Change in Use This affidavit affirms that there has been no change in the use of the property since its purchase in September 2022. Procedural Defects This section outlines all procedural violations, including: - Assessor reclassified property without inspection or documentation.
Page 3
- Township clerk denied FOIA request, confirming no records exist. - Equalization officer defended assessor instead of investigating. - Board failed to document meeting, review evidence, or deliberate. - Board applied incorrect legal standard. - Assessor controlled the narrative; Board relied entirely on him. - Evidence of selective enforcement and lack of uniformity. Statement Regarding Board Member's Prior Involvement This statement details the prior personal involvement of a Board of Review member with the subject property, including hunting on the land and meetings with the petitioner. Timeline of Events (1995 – March 2026) *A clear, chronological record of all relevant events affecting the classification, assessment, documentation, and procedural handling of Parcel 44‑018‑013‑017‑00.* 1995–2021: Original Classification and Township Handling - 1995–2021 — Property consistently classified as Agricultural (101) for more than 25 years. - No inspections, no documentation, and no classification reviews recorded by the township during this entire period. - Property remained largely wooded and unchanged in use. 2021–2025: Caregiving Years - 2021–September 2025 — Petitioner served as full‑time caregiver for his father, limiting ability to engage in farming or land‑use activities. - Affidavit Regarding Caregiving Years documents this period. September 2022: Purchase and Immediate Reclassification
Page 4
- September 2022 — Petitioner purchases the property. - Same month — Assessor reclassifies the property from Agricultural (101) to Residential (401). - No inspection performed. - No change in use identified. - No documentation created or filed, as later confirmed by FOIA denial. - Assessor later claims the property was “hidden for 25 years” and “just found.” Late 2022: Assessor Statements and Irregularities - Assessor states the property was “in the wrong class for 25 years.” - Assessor claims reclassification was based on market value, not use — a direct violation of MCL 211.34c. - No supporting documents exist for the reclassification. 2023–2025: Board Member’s Personal Involvement - 2023, 2024, 2025 — A Board of Review member hunts on the property. - Board member meets with petitioner multiple times regarding improvements. - Board member does not disclose this conflict of interest during the 2026 BOR hearing. - Statement Regarding Board Member’s Prior Involvement documents these events. 2023–2024: Township Records and FOIA Issues - 2023–2024 — Petitioner requests township records regarding classification history. - Township clerk states no records exist. - FOIA request denied, confirming the township has no documentation supporting the reclassification. - This establishes a violation of MCL 211.10g (record‑keeping requirements).
Page 5
2024–2025: Assessor Communications and Audit Log Evidence - 2024–2025 — Petitioner communicates with assessor seeking justification for reclassification. - Assessor repeats that classification was changed due to “market value.” - 2025 audit log obtained: - Shows multiple edits made the same day. - Shows no inspection. - Shows no reason codes. - Shows PRE date removed. - Shows classification changed without documentation. - Audit log confirms the reclassification was undocumented and procedurally defective.
Page 6
- Board
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.
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 - Petitioner MTT DOCKET NO. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer type: Individual Local Unit of Government First Name Alex M.I. Last Name/Company Name Kalani Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 7456 Bridge Way City or Town West Bloomfield Charter Township State Michigan ZIP Code 48322 Telephone Number 2487305747 E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) hpcdoc@gmail.com Section 3: Issue Please designate one: Classification Section 4: Subject Property Information How many parcels are you appealing? 1 Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address] 8674 silverwood Silverwood Michigan 48760 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Rich (LAPEER) County Lapeer 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.) N/A Section 9: Classification Information Parcel Number: 018-013-017-00 Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: Real Residential
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR What do you believe is the property’s classification? Real Agricultural If improved property, how is the property currently being used? wood, hard clay wet. Forrest If improved property, for what use was the property designed? agriculture 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/ AlexHkalani Payment Information Amount: 150 Success: True Message: "" Waiver Code: Transaction Number: 26062590904850 Supporting Waiver Documents:
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.
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 Alex Kalani, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No.: 26-002453 Township Of Rich, 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: 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 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.
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
Michigan Tax Tribunal – Small Claims Division Classification Appeal Packet Parcel: 44-018-013-017-00 Property Address: 8674 Silverwood Rd, Rich Township, Sanilac County Owner: Kalani Alex H Revocable Trust Prepared by: Alex Kalani Cover Letter Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: Small Claims Petition — Classification Appeal Parcel: 44-018-013-017-00 Owner: Kalani Alex H Revocable Trust To Whom It May Concern: Enclosed is a Small Claims Petition appealing the improper reclassification of the above parcel. The property was classified as Agricultural (101) for more than 25 years, despite never being used for row crops or commercial farming. The assessor reclassified the property in September 2022, the same month it was purchased, without inspection, without identifying any change in use, and without maintaining required documentation, as confirmed by a FOIA denial. The Board of Review denied the appeal using the incorrect “50% farming” standard, which applies only to the Qualified Agricultural Exemption. The Board did not review the evidence submitted, did not apply MCL 211.34c, and was influenced by the assessor during the hearing. One Board member had personal involvement with the property, including hunting it during 2023, 2024, and 2025, and meeting with me between 2022 and 2025 regarding improvements, yet did not disclose this or recuse himself. This appeal seeks correction of the classification to Agricultural (101). Respectfully,
Page 2
Alex Kalani Petition Narrative This section includes the nature of the appeal, statement of the issue, and relief requested. Statement of Facts This section includes all factual background, including parcel history, reclassification, and interactions with officials. Additional facts include the township clerk’s FOIA denial, lack of township records, and audit log irregularities. Affidavit Regarding Caregiving Years This affidavit affirms that the petitioner served as a full-time caregiver for his father from 2021 through September 2025. Legal Argument This section includes all legal arguments, including statutory violations, improper standards, and assessor misconduct. Includes assessor’s 'market value' justification, 'hidden for 25 years' claim, and FOIA denial implications. Affidavit of No Change in Use This affidavit affirms that there has been no change in the use of the property since its purchase in September 2022. Procedural Defects This section outlines all procedural violations, including: - Assessor reclassified property without inspection or documentation.
Page 3
- Township clerk denied FOIA request, confirming no records exist. - Equalization officer defended assessor instead of investigating. - Board failed to document meeting, review evidence, or deliberate. - Board applied incorrect legal standard. - Assessor controlled the narrative; Board relied entirely on him. - Evidence of selective enforcement and lack of uniformity. Statement Regarding Board Member's Prior Involvement This statement details the prior personal involvement of a Board of Review member with the subject property, including hunting on the land and meetings with the petitioner. Timeline of Events (1995 – March 2026) *A clear, chronological record of all relevant events affecting the classification, assessment, documentation, and procedural handling of Parcel 44‑018‑013‑017‑00.* 1995–2021: Original Classification and Township Handling - 1995–2021 — Property consistently classified as Agricultural (101) for more than 25 years. - No inspections, no documentation, and no classification reviews recorded by the township during this entire period. - Property remained largely wooded and unchanged in use. 2021–2025: Caregiving Years - 2021–September 2025 — Petitioner served as full‑time caregiver for his father, limiting ability to engage in farming or land‑use activities. - Affidavit Regarding Caregiving Years documents this period. September 2022: Purchase and Immediate Reclassification
Page 4
- September 2022 — Petitioner purchases the property. - Same month — Assessor reclassifies the property from Agricultural (101) to Residential (401). - No inspection performed. - No change in use identified. - No documentation created or filed, as later confirmed by FOIA denial. - Assessor later claims the property was “hidden for 25 years” and “just found.” Late 2022: Assessor Statements and Irregularities - Assessor states the property was “in the wrong class for 25 years.” - Assessor claims reclassification was based on market value, not use — a direct violation of MCL 211.34c. - No supporting documents exist for the reclassification. 2023–2025: Board Member’s Personal Involvement - 2023, 2024, 2025 — A Board of Review member hunts on the property. - Board member meets with petitioner multiple times regarding improvements. - Board member does not disclose this conflict of interest during the 2026 BOR hearing. - Statement Regarding Board Member’s Prior Involvement documents these events. 2023–2024: Township Records and FOIA Issues - 2023–2024 — Petitioner requests township records regarding classification history. - Township clerk states no records exist. - FOIA request denied, confirming the township has no documentation supporting the reclassification. - This establishes a violation of MCL 211.10g (record‑keeping requirements).
Page 5
2024–2025: Assessor Communications and Audit Log Evidence - 2024–2025 — Petitioner communicates with assessor seeking justification for reclassification. - Assessor repeats that classification was changed due to “market value.” - 2025 audit log obtained: - Shows multiple edits made the same day. - Shows no inspection. - Shows no reason codes. - Shows PRE date removed. - Shows classification changed without documentation. - Audit log confirms the reclassification was undocumented and procedurally defective.
Page 6
- Board
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.
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 - Petitioner MTT DOCKET NO. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer type: Individual Local Unit of Government First Name Alex M.I. Last Name/Company Name Kalani Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 7456 Bridge Way City or Town West Bloomfield Charter Township State Michigan ZIP Code 48322 Telephone Number 2487305747 E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) hpcdoc@gmail.com Section 3: Issue Please designate one: Classification Section 4: Subject Property Information How many parcels are you appealing? 1 Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address] 8674 silverwood Silverwood Michigan 48760 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Rich (LAPEER) County Lapeer 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.) N/A Section 9: Classification Information Parcel Number: 018-013-017-00 Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: Real Residential
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR What do you believe is the property’s classification? Real Agricultural If improved property, how is the property currently being used? wood, hard clay wet. Forrest If improved property, for what use was the property designed? agriculture 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/ AlexHkalani Payment Information Amount: 150 Success: True Message: "" Waiver Code: Transaction Number: 26062590904850 Supporting Waiver Documents:
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.