Michigan

Alnamer Investment LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent

Petitioner: Alnamer Investment LLC
Respondent: City Of Detroit

Case overview

Docket number: 24-003458-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Wayne
Judge: Glekler, Erissa

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
14	Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/31/2025	Not recorded	Download
13	Exceptions were filed.	PET	Not recorded	09/11/2025	Not recorded	Download
12	Proposed Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	08/21/2025	Not recorded	Download
11	Hearing Completed	Not recorded	Not recorded	06/27/2025	Not recorded	Not recorded
10	Evidence was received.	RESP	Not recorded	06/06/2025	Not recorded	Download
9	Evidence was received.	RESP	Not recorded	06/04/2025	Not recorded	Download
8	Notice of Hearing	Not recorded	Not recorded	04/15/2025	Not recorded	Download
7	A hearing has been scheduled	Not recorded	Not recorded	04/15/2025	Not recorded	Not recorded
6	Notice of Filing	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/04/2024	Not recorded	Download
5	Attachments to the Answer were filed	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/01/2024	Not recorded	Download
4	Answer was received	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/01/2024	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	09/17/2024	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number SC	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/17/2024	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	05/31/2024	$250.00	Download

Documents

24-003458.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Alnamer Investment LLC,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 24-003458

City of Detroit,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Order of Dismissal (POJ) on August 21, 2025. The

POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below

to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with

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

to the POJ).”

On September 11, 2025, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions,

Petitioner states that, after conferring with Respondent’s representative, Petitioner

believed that the parties had reached a settlement agreement. However, one week

prior to the scheduled hearing, Petitioner’s representative was advised that a stipulation

would not be executed. As a result, there was not sufficient time for Petitioner to submit

evidence of the property’s true cash value (TCV). Petitioner’s exceptions further state

that, “[a]t the June 27 hearing, [Respondent’s representative] testified that although she

did initially agree to the stipulation, the subject property was i[n] better condition than

she thought. Respondent[‘s representative] testified that she declined to agree to the

stipulation because she had visited the site a ‘few weeks’ prior to the hearing.” Since

the appeal involves the value of the subject as of December 31, 2023, the condition of

the property, and its corresponding value in the summer of 2025, has no bearing on this

appeal.

Respondent has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Petitioner’s

exceptions.

The Tribunal has considered the exceptions and the case file and finds that the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the testimony and evidence

submitted in rendering the POJ. Specifically, the claims made within Petitioner’s

exceptions were considered and rejected by the ALJ in the rendering of the POJ. The

POJ summarized Petitioner’s contentions as follows:

Petitioner’s representative did not have an opportunity to submit any

evidence in this case because they believed that a settlement had been

reached. The parties’ representatives spoke on the phone a few times and

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003458 

Page 2 of 4 

 

Petitioner’s representative forwarded Respondent the numbers that they 

had agreed to, but was subsequently informed that its representative would 

no longer agree to those numbers. Petitioner’s representative was 

blindsided by the last-minute reversal and seeks a rehearing. Upon inquiry 

from the Tribunal, Petitioner’s representative testified that they believed the 

parties had come to an agreement on settlement on or around June 10, 

2025; Petitioner’s representative was not able to provide any testimony on 

the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2022 sale of the property. 

 

The POJ indicated that Petitioner did not provide a value contention for the 2025 tax 

year or offer any exhibits in support of the appeal. 

 

The POJ also pointed out that the condition of the property was the primary basis for 

Petitioner’s appeal but explained that there was no documentary evidence offered 

establishing the property’s condition as of the relevant valuation dates at issue. The 

POJ concluded that Petitioner’s testimony was insufficient to meet Petitioner’s burden of 

going forward with the evidence as it related to the condition of the property. 

Furthermore, the POJ found that Petitioner failed to provide “documentary evidence of 

sales or other market-based evidence establishing the quantitative impact, if any, the 

asserted condition would have on the property’s TCV, and its representative could not 

testify to the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2022 sale of the property, which 

Respondent’s office deemed to be a non-arms-length transaction.” Thus, the Tribunal 

concludes that the ALJ’s determination that Petitioner did not meet their burden of going 

forward with the evidence is supported by the record in this case and applicable 

statutory authority. 

 

In terms of Petitioner’s claim that it had insufficient time to submit documentary 

evidence in this case, the POJ also addressed and rejected these same claims. The 

POJ noted that Petitioner had sufficient notice and opportunity to file evidence and 

prepare its case for hearing. The POJ determined that Petitioner filed the appeal on 

May 31, 2024, and the Tribunal issued a Notice of Filing on October 4, 2024, which 

indicated that the case was ready to be scheduled for hearing and the

Page 3

MTT

Page 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.

24-003458.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

SEP 16 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIG 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEMS 

AN TAX TRIBUNAL 

September 10, 2025 

Alnamer investment LLC 

Petitioner 

\ 

: 

MTT Docket No. 24-003458 

City of Detroit 

Respondent 

PETITIONER'S EXCEPTIONS 

On October 21, 2025, 

a PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL was issued by the Administrative 

Law Judge pertaining to this appeal. The Petitioner's Representative request that this proposed 

order of dismissal be set aside and a proper hearing to be held based on the following facts: 

1. 

As testified at the hearing dated June 27, 2025, the Petitioner's Representative, Sam 

Miller, and the Respondent's Representative, Stacy Smith, both confirmed that a 

stipulation had been agreed upon. 

2. 

After a few phone conversations and e-mails, this stipulation was agreed upon prior 

to the 21 days that is required by the Tribunal for the evidence and valuation to be 

submitted. 

3. 

Petitioner then drew up and forwarded the stipulation to be sighed via e-mail to the 

Respondent's Representative. 

4. 

On June 20, 2025, one week prior to the scheduled hearing, the Petitioner's

Page 2

7. 

At the June 27 hearing, the Respondent testified that although she did initially agree 

to the stipulation, the subject property was is better condition than she thought. 

8. 

Respondent testified that she declined to agree to the stipulation because she had 

visited the site a “few weeks” prior to the hearing. 

9. 

This case relies on the condition and value of the subject as of December 31, 2023, not 

the condition and value as of the summer of 2025. These potential facts have no bearing 

on this appeal. 

in conclusion, and in light of the circumstances stated above, we feel that a fair and 

proper hearing is warranted and should be re-scheduled to determine the facts and 

value of the subject property at the time of the appeal. 

Thank You, 

7 

cm Mille” PropTax America 

Petitioner's Representative

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

AlNamer Investments LLC 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

¥ 

MTT Docket No. 24-003458 

City of Detroit 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Sam Miller 

states that on September 10, 2025 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Petitioner's Exceptions 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

City of Detroit / Assessing Office / Stacy Smith 

2 Woodward Ave 

Detroit, Ml 48226 

__Isignature of person who is serving/mailing copy] 

Sam Miller

Page 4

26922 Upveloek 

veronLec 

s0 Dl 

PEW 

#578, 7/7 

11 SEP 2025 [AM ISL 

: 

CYR 

; 

r

Vy AV Tar Tr) bows 

Ll 

OFtrws S£ 

L AVS, Mich 

S¢7355

< i. 

23 

48935-10701 1 

Titles Jaffe 

Tie ia 

dbs yids ped ide

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.

24-003458 valuation.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Alnamer Investment LLC,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 24-003458

City of Detroit,

Case Type: Valuation

Respondent.

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Personnel Presiding:

Erissa J. Glekler, Administrative Law Judge

Location of Hearing:

Telephonic

Hearing Held on:

June 27, 2025

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner:

Sam Miller

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Stacy Smith

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 31, 2024; Respondent filed an answer

to the petition on October 1, 2024.

The amount of the SEV or TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at

issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.1 Further, the

property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.2

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW

The issues in this matter are:

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV.

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of the property.”3

The assessment of real property in Michigan may not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 TCV

means “the usual selling price . . . being the price that could be obtained for the property

at private sale, and not at auction . . . or at forced sale.”5 The concepts of TCV and “fair

market value” are synonymous.6

1 See MCL 205.762(1).

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979).

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3.

5 MCL 211.27(1).

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003458

Page 2 of 6

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of

both in arriving at its determination.”8

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a.

Pursuant to MCL 211.27a, a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or capped

TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the

lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including new construction

and omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed).10

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

A. Petitioner’s Evidence

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV:

Parcel Number: 21002977-84

Year

TCV

SEV

2024

$30,000

$15,000

2025

N/A

*Petitioner did not provide value contentions for the 2025 tax year.

Petitioner offered no exhibits.

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends

that the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its TCV. Petitioner purchased

the property for $30,000 in 2022; Petitioner is in the process of making improvements,

but the assessments are not reflective of the property’s actual condition. Petitioner’s

representative did not have an opportunity to submit any evidence in this case because

they believed that a settlement had been reached. The parties’ representatives spoke

on the phone a few times and Petitioner’s representative forwarded Respondent the

numbers that they had agreed to, but was subsequently informed that its representative

would no longer agree to those numbers. Petitioner’s representative was blindsided by

the last-minute reversal and seeks a rehearing. Upon inquiry from the Tribunal,

Petitioner’s representative testified that they believed the parties had come to an

agreement on settlement on or around June 10, 2025; Petitioner’s representative was

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992).

8 Id. at 356.

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979).

10 See MCL 211.34d.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003458 

Page 3 of 6 

 

not able to provide any testimony on the facts and circumstances surrounding the 2022 

sale of the property. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The property’s TCV, SEV and TV, as confirmed by the BOR: 

 

Parcel Number: 21002977-84 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$183,200

$91,600

$91,600

2025

$189,000

$94,500

$94,439

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on lines 5, 9, and 10 of the docket 

maintained in this case.11 

 

No exhibits were excluded from

Page 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.

6-6.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

Alnamer Investment LLC 

Petitioner, 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003458 

 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On 06/06/2025 I, Stacy Smith, E-Filed a copy of the Valuation Disclosure for this appeal to: 

 

 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Po Box 30232 

Lansing MI, 48909 

 

And emailed a copy to Petitioner’s Representative: 

 

Sam Miller 

[nassco123@yahoo.com] 

26923 Havelock 

Dearborn Heights, MI 48127 

 

 

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

 

 

Dated: 6/6/2025 

Signature Stacy Smith 

Stacy Smith 

 

 

 

 

Appraiser III 

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

2 Woodward Ave., Suite 804 

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Page 2

Sale Comps Map Overview

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1158060

Page 1

6/6/2025

4 Sale Comps Map Overview 

— 

~~ 

VILLAGE 

(24) 

Birmingham 

Warren 

Berkley, 

WARREN 

WooDSs 

St Clair Shores 

lemm———==nG5eville 

i 

- 

4 

— 

Farmington 

Hills 

Royal Oak Madison 

( 

’ 

Huntington 

.. Heights 

i 

Woods 

Farmington 

“wy 

Ferndale Hazel Park 

AGE OAKS 

Oak Park 

Q 

N 

| 

©} 

~(102) 

102 

Grosse Pointe 

of 

Woods 

Harper,Woods 

a 

v 

V4 

Grosse. 

Qs 

Pointe Farms 

(10) (1) 

Grosse Pointe 

Grosse 

LAGE 

b 

5 

- 

Pointe Park 

Livonia 

y 

- 

\ 

= 

Dearborn 

- 

Hei 

WN 

: 

.. 

E 

=d 

Westland 

Garden City "1 

=P 

8 

J 

RIVERSIDE 

ay 

4 

. 

| 

[ 

4 

| 

TT ‘Tecumseh 

FOREST GLADE 

NORWAYNE 

Inkster 

Elmstead 

¥ 

| 

Ao 

o 

ge —— 

| 7 

Pp; 

B 

I 

Linco 

Park 

/ 

! 

AL 

Map data ©2025 Google 

6/6/2025 

& 

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1158060 

Page 1

Page 3

1

18280 Livernois Ave

Detroit, MI 48221 (Wayne County) - Detroit W of Woodward Submarket

Retail

Sale Summary 

Sold

11/12/2024

Sale Price

$215,000 ($74.32/SF)

GLA

2,893 SF

Built

1947

Land Area

0.09 AC/3,920 SF

Sale Comp Status

Public Record

Sale Comp ID

7034898

Parcel Numbers

02-004359

Contacts 

Type

Name

Location

Phone

Recorded Buyer

Ahmed A Pady

Detroit, MI 48211

(313) 921-8180

Recorded Seller

M H S H Llc

-

-

Transaction Details 

Sale Date

11/12/2024

Recording Date

12/12/2024

Sale Price

$215,000 ($74.32/SF)

Zoning

C, Detroit

Land Price

$2,389,133/AC ($54.85/SF)

Document Number

59244-0879

Hold Period

20+ Years

Parcel Number

02-004359, 02-004361, 02-004360

Assessment At Sale 

Assessed Year

Total Assessed

Improved Assessed

Land Assessed

% Improved

Tax Amount

2024

$68,300

$0

$0

-

$2,213.03

Sale History 

Sale Date

Price

Sale Type

Buyer

Seller

11/12/2024

$215,000 ($74.32/SF)

Individual Property

Ahmed A Pady

M H S H Llc

4/25/2002

$255,000 ($88.14/SF)

Investment

MHSH

Nick & Melissa Salmo

Tenants at Sale 

Tenant Name

Floor

SF Occupied

Employees

Move Date

Expiration

Livernois Fish Seafood

1

-

2

Jul 2016

-

Showing 1 of 1 Tenants

Property Details 

Tenancy

Multi

Building FAR

0.74

Number of Tenants

1

Parking Spaces

22 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 3.37/1,000 SF

Frontage

Livernois

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1158060

Page 2

6/6/2025

Page 4

1

18280 Livernois Ave

Detroit, MI 48221 (Wayne County) - Detroit W of Woodward Submarket

Retail

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1158060

Page 3

6/6/2025

Page 5

2

16800 E 8 Mile Rd

Detroit, MI 48021 (Wayne County) - Detroit E of Woodward Submarket

Retail

Sale Summary 

Sold

4/4/2023

Sale Price

$350,000 ($100.55/SF)

GLA

3,481 SF

Price Status

Confirmed

Built

1963

Land Area

0.42 AC/18,295 SF

Sale Comp Status

Public Record

Sale Comp ID

6354228

Contacts 

Type

Name

Location

Phone

Buyer Broker

Signature Associates

Southfield, MI 48076

(248) 948-9000

Contacts

Christopher Monsour (313) 363-1010

Listing Broker

Signature Associates

Southfield, MI 48076

(248) 948-9000

Contacts

Joe Stack (248) 514-8591, Rick Birdsall (248) 842-3145

Transaction Details 

Sale Date

4/4/2023

Time On Market

3 Months 7 Days

Sale Price

$350,000 ($100.55/SF)

Hold Period

37 Months

Land Price

$833,342/AC ($19.13/SF)

Zoning

B4

Sale Type

Owner User

Parcel Number

21-02785-864

Assessment At Sale 

Assessed Year

Total Assessed

Improved Assessed

Land Assessed

% Improved

Tax Amount

2023

$0

$0

$0

-

$10,081.46

Sale History 

Sale Date

Price

Sale Type

Buyer

Seller

4/4/2023

$350,000 ($100.55/SF)

Owner User

-

-

3/2/2020

Not Disclosed

Investment

-

DOKHO VIOLETTE

3/28/2013

$60,000 ($17.24/SF)

Investment

DOKHO VIOLETTE

Mannino Michele

For Lease At Sale 

Number of Spaces

1

Total Available

3,481 SF

Smallest Space

3,481 SF

Asking Rent

$12.06 SF/yr

Max Contiguous

3,481 SF

Retail Available

3,481 SF

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1158060

Page 4

6/6/2025

Page 6

2

16800 E 8 Mile Rd

Detroit, MI 48021 (Wayne County) - Detroit E of Woodward Submarket

Retail

Property Details 

Tenancy

Single

Docks

None

Ceiling Height

14'

Building FAR

0.19

Parking Spaces

22 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 6.32/1,000 SF

Frontage

Page 7

3

244

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.

24-003458 Alnamer Investment Combined Files.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

1

20200 Grand River Ave - Burger King

Detroit, MI 48219 (Wayne County) - Detroit W of Woodward Submarket

Retail

Sale Summary 

Sold

7/12/2024

Sale Price

Not Disclosed

GLA

2,860 SF

Built

1985

Land Area

1.18 AC/51,401 SF

Sale Comp Status

Public Record

Sale Comp ID

6786336

Parcel Numbers

22-00794-556

Contacts 

Type

Name

Location

Phone

Recorded Buyer

Vh Re Property Llc

Troy, MI 48085

-

Recorded Seller

Burger King Company, LLC

Miami, FL 33126

1 (905) 339-6011

Recorded Seller

Burger King Company LLC

-

-

True Seller

Burger King

Miami, FL 33126

(866) 394-2493

Listing Broker

CBRE

Southfield, MI 48075

(248) 353-5400

Contacts

Scott Young (248) 342-9000, Matt Croswell (248) 207-3128, Ashley Young (248) 872-8956, Jake Vorkapich (313) 648-5872

Transaction Details 

Sale Date

7/12/2024

Hold Period

23 Months

Sale Price

Not Disclosed

Recording Date

7/23/2024

Sale Type

Owner User

Zoning

R1

Time On Market

1 Year

Document Number

58986-0629

Parcel Number

22-00794-556

Assessment At Sale 

Assessed Year

Total Assessed

Improved Assessed

Land Assessed

% Improved

Tax Amount

2024

$196,200

$0

$0

-

$11,724.98

Sale History 

Sale Date

Price

Sale Type

Buyer

Seller

7/12/2024

Not Disclosed

Owner User

Vh Re Property Llc

Burger King

8/22/2022

Not Disclosed

Individual Property

Burger King Company, LLC

Burger King Corporation

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1550797

Page 1

6/4/2025

Page 2

1

20200 Grand River Ave - Burger King

Detroit, MI 48219 (Wayne County) - Detroit W of Woodward Submarket

Retail

For Lease At Sale 

Number of Spaces

1

Asking Rent

Withheld

Smallest Space

2,700 SF

CAM

Withheld

Max Contiguous

2,700 SF

Retail Available

2,700 SF

Total Available

2,700 SF

Property Details 

Tenancy

Single

Building FAR

0.06

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1550797

Page 2

6/4/2025

Page 3

2

18435 Plymouth Rd - Pizza Hut

Detroit, MI 48228 (Wayne County) - Detroit W of Woodward Submarket

Retail

Sale Summary 

Sold

7/2/2024

Sale Price

Not Disclosed

GLA

2,793 SF

Built

1986

Land Area

0.39 AC/16,988 SF

Sale Comp Status

Public Record

Sale Comp ID

6772721

Contacts 

Type

Name

Location

Phone

Recorded Seller

Miller Oak Investment LLC

Dearborn Heights, MI 48127

(313) 837-3630

True Seller

Saad, Baha

Dearborn Heights, MI 48127

(313) 562-3104

Listing Broker

Keller Williams Legacy

Dearborn, MI 48124

(313) 752-0000

Contacts

Nick Jaafar (313) 706-7011

Transaction Details 

Sale Date

7/2/2024

Time On Market

1 Year 3 Months

Sale Price

Not Disclosed

Hold Period

98 Months

Sale Type

Investment

Zoning

Commercial

Parcel Number

22-00526-774

Assessment At Sale 

Assessed Year

Total Assessed

Improved Assessed

Land Assessed

% Improved

Tax Amount

2024

$0

$0

$0

-

$6,485.32

Sale History 

Sale Date

Price

Sale Type

Buyer

Seller

7/2/2024

Not Disclosed

Investment

-

Saad, Baha

5/13/2016

Not Disclosed

Owner User

Miller Oak Investment LLC

American Realty Capital 

Properties, Inc.

7/24/2014

$8,819,553 ($367.74/SF)

7 Property Portfolio

VEREIT, Inc.

GE Capital

Property Details 

Building FAR

0.16

Parking Spaces

32 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 10.00/1,000 SF

Frontage

 92' on Faust Ave (with 1 curb cut), 48' on Plymouth Rd (with 1 curb cut)

Amenities 

• Corner Lot

• Drive Thru

• Restaurant

• Signage

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1550797

Page 3

6/4/2025

Page 4

3

10340 Van Dyke St

Detroit, MI 48234 (Wayne County) - Detroit E of Woodward Submarket

Retail

Sale Summary 

Sold

2/7/2023

Sale Price

$80,000 ($28.57/SF)

GLA (% Leased)

2,800 SF (100%)

Built

1951

Land Area

0.31 AC/13,504 SF

Sale Comp Status

Public Record

Sale Comp ID

6326227

Parcel Numbers

17-0096434

Contacts 

Type

Name

Location

Phone

Recorded Buyer

Aurora Group Three Llc

-

-

Recorded Seller

Watson Raeonna

-

-

Transaction Details 

Sale Date

2/7/2023

Recording Date

2/14/2023

Sale Price

$80,000 ($28.57/SF)

Zoning

Commercial

Land Price

$258,057/AC ($5.92/SF)

Document Number

58080-0796

Hold Period

38 Months

Parcel Number

17-0096434

Assessment At Sale 

Assessed Year

Total Assessed

Improved Assessed

Land Assessed

% Improved

Tax Amount

2023

$23,300

$0

$0

-

$2,736.60

Sale History 

Sale Date

Price

Sale Type

Buyer

Seller

2/7/2023

$80,000 ($28.57/SF)

Individual Property

Aurora Group Three Llc

Watson Raeonna

12/12/2019

$80,000 ($28.57/SF)

Investment

-

Daniel Gersch

Property Details 

Tenancy

Single

Docks

None

Ceiling Height

9'

Building FAR

0.21

Parking Spaces

30 Surface Spaces; Ratio of 10.00/1,000 SF

Frontage

 71' on Van Dyke St

Amenities 

• Bus Line

• Fenced Lot

© 2025 CoStar Group - Licensed to City of Detroit - Office of the Assesor - 1550797

Page 4

6/4/2025

Page 5

1

Sale Price

Center Size

Price per SF

Actual Cap Rate

Days on Market

Sale Price to Asking Price Ratio

-

$80,000

2,793 SF

$28.57

-

367

$80,000

2,818 SF

$28.57

-

418

-

$80,000

2,800 SF

$28.57

-

418

-

$80,000

2,860 SF

$28.57

-

469

-

3

1

-

2

-

Totals

Sold Transactions

$80,000

Total Sales Transactions:

Total Sales Volume:

3

Survey Criteria

basic criteria: Type of Property - Retail; Property Size - 2,000 -

Page 6

STAT

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.

SC_Notice_of_Telephonic_Hearing.2025-04-15_13-38-08.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Alnamer Investment LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No.: 24-003458

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone hearing to be conducted as follows. Hearings are

generally 30 minutes in length.

HEARING DATE:

June 27, 2025

HEARING TIME:

9:45 AM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

122943514

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a

party or parties in default.

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document.

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento.

এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আইনি দলিল, অনুগ্রহ করে কেউ দলিলটিকে অনুবাদ করুন।

.ةقيثولا مجرتت صخش كيدل ىجري ةماه ةينوناق ةقيثو وه اذه

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003458

Page 2 of 12

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan Tax

Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et

seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. A party is expected to

exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses and administrative law judges, which

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and dressing in appropriate clothing for in-person

hearings. The hearing may be recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record,

unless otherwise provided for by the Tribunal.

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing.

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness

testimony.

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to the Tribunal

and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were previously

submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the documents are not

timely submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be

submitted by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the opposing party by

mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to

the opposing party or their authorized representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that

party or authorized representative, unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other

documentation identifying a different mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after

the Notice of Hearing if they were previously submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party.

If a hearing had previously been scheduled in this case and adjourned, and the adjournment order indicates

that the parties are precluded from submitting any further documentary evidence, no further documentary

evidence will be accepted even if filed and exchanged, as indicated above.

Inclusion of Subsequent Tax Years: Subsequent tax year assessments are automatically included in a

valuation appeal once the assessment has been established for that tax year unless the Tribunal grants the

exclusion of the subsequent tax year. For purposes of administrative efficiency, the Tribunal considers this

date April 1st. As such, the parties should be prepared to discuss all additional assessments at hearings to be

conducted on or after April 1st. If the hearing is to be conducted prior to April 1st, taxpayers would be required to

file a new petition and, if necessary, protest the subsequent tax year assessment at the March Board of

Review for that tax year.

MOTIONS/REQUESTS: A motion is a written request filed by a party asking the Tribunal to take certain action.

The following motions and requests (including subpoenas) may be filed by either party regarding the scheduled

Page 3

MTT

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

STAT

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.

SC-Notice_of_Filing_of_Answer.2024-10-04_10-39-09.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Alnamer Investment LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 24-003458

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website.

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation.

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003458

Page 2 of 6

If you have any questions, please contact the Tribunal by phone at (517) 335-9760 or 

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: October 4, 2024

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