Bernard T Rocca, Rebecca Rocca, Petitioners Vs. Township Of Leelanau, Respondent

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 5 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BERNARD T. ROCCA, IV and 

REBECCA ROCCA, 

» 

824-1 

08/ 

Petitioners, 

0.00 

TTI VERWETTEN POPOUITS 

v. 

MTT Docket No. 25-003150 

LEELANAU TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Pezzetti, Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

600 E. Front St., Ste. 102 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

231-929-3450 

mschubert@mich-legal.com 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioners, Bernard T. Rocca, IV and Rebecca Rocca, through their attorneys, Pezzetti, 

Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C., and for their Motion for Reconsideration state as follows: 

1. 

On July 31, 2025, Petitioners filed the attached Petition (See Exhibit 1) via first class mail. 

2: 

On August 13, 2025, Petitioners received an Order of Dismissal from this Tribunal stating 

that “[t]he petition was not filed by July 31 

or the next business day after the Tribunal 

offices were closed. See MCL 205.735a.”

Page 2

A petition is considered filed on or before the expiration of the time period provided in 

this section or by law if 1 or more of the following occur: 

(a) The petition is postmarked by the United States postal service on or before the 

expiration of that time period. 

4. 

As seen on the last page of Exhibit 1, Petitioners’ Petition was postmarked July 31, 2025, 

and therefore, was timely filed. 

5. 

MCR 2.612(A)(1) allows a court to grant relief from an order due to clerical mistakes on 

motion of a party and after notice. 

WHEREFORE, for the aforementioned reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that this 

Tribunal set aside its Order of Dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.612(A)(1) and grant Petitioner any 

such other relief as this Tribunal deems appropriate. 

PEZZETTI, VERMETTEN, POPOVITS & 

UMULIS, P.C. 

fan 

ESE 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Dated: 

August 15, 2025 

By: 

I certify on this date 

I served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

Dated: 

August 15,2025 

By: 

TL ——¢ 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331)

Page 3

EXHIBIT 1

Page 4

FECEIVED 

AUG 0.6 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MIGHIG, 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

AN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BERNARD T. ROCCA, IV and 

REBECCA ROCCA, 

Petitioners, 

MTT Docket No. 

LEELANAU TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Pezzetti, Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

600 E. Front St, Ste. 102 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

231-929-3450 

mschubert@mich-legal.com 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

Petitioners, Bernard T, Rocca, IV and Rebecca Rocca, through their attorneys, Pezzetti, 

Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C., petition this Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

Petitioners are husband and wife and reside at 1414 Forest Ave., Evanston, Illinois 60201. 

2. 

"The property that is the subject of this Petition is located in Leelanau Township, County of 

Leelanau. 

3, 

The property at issue is an undeveloped parcel of land, with the common address of E Seth

Page 5

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

Parcel 

1 is one of four parcels that were created by a split of a larger parcel. See Exhibit B 

— Certificate of Survey. 

This appeal involves Petitioner’s claim that 

the assessed and taxable values of the Property 

were incorrectly determined by the local assessing unit, Leelanau Township. 

The tax years at issue are the current year (2025) and later years, 

On or about March 11, 2025, Petitioner submitted a Petition the Board of Review. See 

attached Exhibit C — Petition to Board of Review. 

The values for Parcel 1, as affirmed by the 2025 March Board of Review Decision, are as 

follows: 

Tax year: 

2025 

2025 Taxable Value: 

$450,100 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$450,100 

Petitioner contends that the values for the Property are: 

Tax year; 

EER 

2025 

True Cash Value 

: 

$700,000 

2025 Taxable Value: 

) 

$350,000 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$350,000 

The amount in dispute for the taxable value of Parcel 

1 

is $100,100 and the amount in 

dispute related to the assessed value of Parcel 

1 is $100,100. 

MCL 211.27a(1) provides that “fe]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, property 

shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash value under section 3 of article IX of the state 

constitution of 1963.” 

For purposed of the General Property Tax Act, the term “true cash value” means the “usual

Page 6

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.” MCL 

244.27(1). 

The term “true cash value” for purposes of The General Property Tax Act is equivalent to 

a property’s fair market value, Menards, Inc. v City of Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 522; 

891 NW2d 

1 (2016). 

To determine the true cash value, the Property is to be valued at its highest and best use, 

which in this instance, given the current undeveloped state of the Propetty, the location on 

Lake Michigan, applicable zoning laws, and economic feasibility, 

is the continued 

residential classification. 

The three valuation methods used to determine the true cash value that have been found by 

this Tax Tribunal and the courts as acceptable and reliable are: (i) the cost-less depreciation 

approach; (ii) the sales-comparison or market approach; and (iii) the capitalization-of- 

income approach. Jd. ar 523. 

Based on an appraisal conducted by a certified appraiser incorporating valuation methods 

that the Tax Tribunal has found reliable for determining a Property’s true case value, 

Petitioner contends that the tru thse value of the Property is $700,000, and accordingly, 

the taxable value and assessed value should be set at $350,000. See Exhibit D — Appraisal. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Tribunal correct the taxable value 

of the subject property and reduce the assessed value of the subject property based upon an accurate 

valuation of the

Page 7

PEZZETTI,

Page 8

EX

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 

Bernard T Rocca and Rebecca Rocca, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioners, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003150 

 

Leelanau Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On August 18, 2025, Petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on August 13, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioners state that attached evidence demonstrates that the petition was postmarked 

by the filing deadline of July 31, 2025. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioners have 

failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the order that misled the Tribunal and 

the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was 

corrected.1 Pursuant to MCL 205.735a(7)(a), “a petition is considered filed on or before 

the expiration of the time period provided in this section or by law if . . . . [it] is 

postmarked by the United States postal service on or before the expiration of that time 

period.”2 The envelope containing the petition in this case, however, bears a metered 

postmark, and it therefore was not “postmarked” by the United States postal service as 

provided by MCL 205.735a(7)(a). This determination was affirmed by the Court of 

Appeals in Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp.3: 

 

The operative language of the statute is ‘postmarked by the United States 

postal service.’ Thus, the statute unambiguously treats ‘postmarked’ as a 

verb, or in other words, an action undertaken by the USPS. Petitioners 

rely on treating the word as a noun, which would impermissibly rewrite the 

statute to read something in effect, ‘bearing a postmark from the United 

States postal service.’ Although perhaps a subtle distinction, we are not 

permitted to deviate from what the Legislature actually wrote. ‘Postmark,’ 

when used as a verb, means ‘to put a postmark on.’ Merriam–Webster's 

Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed). Consequently, the statute unambiguously 

 

1 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

2 Id. See also TTR 225(5), which states, in relevant part, that “a submission by mail is considered filed on 

the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the 

submission.” Id. 

3 Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued October 26, 2017 (Docket No. 334318).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003150 

Page 2 of 2 

 

requires the postmark to have been applied ‘by the United States postal 

service.’ 

 

We conclude that it was not, and petitioners do not appear to seriously 

contend that it was so applied. A postage meter is ‘a device or system of 

components a customer uses to print evidence that postage required for 

mailing has been paid.’ . . . . Postage meters imprint postage under 

license of the USPS . . . and are regulated by the USPS to ensure they 

are properly used . . . . Thus, the petition in this case could not have 

literally been ‘postmarked’ by the USPS because it was postmarked by 

petitioners. At best, the petition was postmarked under license of the 

USPS. The statute unambiguously mandates that only petitions that are 

‘postmarked by the United States postal service’ fall within the provisions 

of MCL 205.735a(7)(a).4 

 

TTR 225(5) states that “a submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is 

considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal.”5 The petition in 

this case was date-stamped by the Tribunal on August 4, 2025, and also bears a 

money-stamped date of August 4, 2025, which is considered the date received by the 

Tribunal for purposes of TTR 225(5). As such, and because the petition wasn’t filed 

until August 4, 2025, the appeal is untimely and was properly dismissed. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: September 4, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

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 

 

4 Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued October 26, 2017 (Docket No. 334318). 

5 Id.

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

RECEIVED 

AUG 2 5 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BERNARD T. ROCCA, IV and 

REBECCA ROCCA, 

» 

824-1 

08/ 

Petitioners, 

0.00 

TTI VERWETTEN POPOUITS 

v. 

MTT Docket No. 25-003150 

LEELANAU TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Pezzetti, Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

600 E. Front St., Ste. 102 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

231-929-3450 

mschubert@mich-legal.com 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioners, Bernard T. Rocca, IV and Rebecca Rocca, through their attorneys, Pezzetti, 

Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C., and for their Motion for Reconsideration state as follows: 

1. 

On July 31, 2025, Petitioners filed the attached Petition (See Exhibit 1) via first class mail. 

2: 

On August 13, 2025, Petitioners received an Order of Dismissal from this Tribunal stating 

that “[t]he petition was not filed by July 31 

or the next business day after the Tribunal 

offices were closed. See MCL 205.735a.”

Page 2

A petition is considered filed on or before the expiration of the time period provided in 

this section or by law if 1 or more of the following occur: 

(a) The petition is postmarked by the United States postal service on or before the 

expiration of that time period. 

4. 

As seen on the last page of Exhibit 1, Petitioners’ Petition was postmarked July 31, 2025, 

and therefore, was timely filed. 

5. 

MCR 2.612(A)(1) allows a court to grant relief from an order due to clerical mistakes on 

motion of a party and after notice. 

WHEREFORE, for the aforementioned reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that this 

Tribunal set aside its Order of Dismissal pursuant to MCR 2.612(A)(1) and grant Petitioner any 

such other relief as this Tribunal deems appropriate. 

PEZZETTI, VERMETTEN, POPOVITS & 

UMULIS, P.C. 

fan 

ESE 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Dated: 

August 15, 2025 

By: 

I certify on this date 

I served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

Dated: 

August 15,2025 

By: 

TL ——¢ 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331)

Page 3

EXHIBIT 1

Page 4

FECEIVED 

AUG 0.6 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MIGHIG, 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

AN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BERNARD T. ROCCA, IV and 

REBECCA ROCCA, 

Petitioners, 

MTT Docket No. 

LEELANAU TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Pezzetti, Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

600 E. Front St, Ste. 102 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

231-929-3450 

mschubert@mich-legal.com 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

Petitioners, Bernard T, Rocca, IV and Rebecca Rocca, through their attorneys, Pezzetti, 

Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C., petition this Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

Petitioners are husband and wife and reside at 1414 Forest Ave., Evanston, Illinois 60201. 

2. 

"The property that is the subject of this Petition is located in Leelanau Township, County of 

Leelanau. 

3, 

The property at issue is an undeveloped parcel of land, with the common address of E Seth

Page 5

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

Parcel 

1 is one of four parcels that were created by a split of a larger parcel. See Exhibit B 

— Certificate of Survey. 

This appeal involves Petitioner’s claim that 

the assessed and taxable values of the Property 

were incorrectly determined by the local assessing unit, Leelanau Township. 

The tax years at issue are the current year (2025) and later years, 

On or about March 11, 2025, Petitioner submitted a Petition the Board of Review. See 

attached Exhibit C — Petition to Board of Review. 

The values for Parcel 1, as affirmed by the 2025 March Board of Review Decision, are as 

follows: 

Tax year: 

2025 

2025 Taxable Value: 

$450,100 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$450,100 

Petitioner contends that the values for the Property are: 

Tax year; 

EER 

2025 

True Cash Value 

: 

$700,000 

2025 Taxable Value: 

) 

$350,000 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$350,000 

The amount in dispute for the taxable value of Parcel 

1 

is $100,100 and the amount in 

dispute related to the assessed value of Parcel 

1 is $100,100. 

MCL 211.27a(1) provides that “fe]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, property 

shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash value under section 3 of article IX of the state 

constitution of 1963.” 

For purposed of the General Property Tax Act, the term “true cash value” means the “usual

Page 6

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.” MCL 

244.27(1). 

The term “true cash value” for purposes of The General Property Tax Act is equivalent to 

a property’s fair market value, Menards, Inc. v City of Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 522; 

891 NW2d 

1 (2016). 

To determine the true cash value, the Property is to be valued at its highest and best use, 

which in this instance, given the current undeveloped state of the Propetty, the location on 

Lake Michigan, applicable zoning laws, and economic feasibility, 

is the continued 

residential classification. 

The three valuation methods used to determine the true cash value that have been found by 

this Tax Tribunal and the courts as acceptable and reliable are: (i) the cost-less depreciation 

approach; (ii) the sales-comparison or market approach; and (iii) the capitalization-of- 

income approach. Jd. ar 523. 

Based on an appraisal conducted by a certified appraiser incorporating valuation methods 

that the Tax Tribunal has found reliable for determining a Property’s true case value, 

Petitioner contends that the tru thse value of the Property is $700,000, and accordingly, 

the taxable value and assessed value should be set at $350,000. See Exhibit D — Appraisal. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Tribunal correct the taxable value 

of the subject property and reduce the assessed value of the subject property based upon an accurate 

valuation of the

Page 7

PEZZETTI,

Page 8

EX

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

Bernard T Rocca,Rebecca Rocca, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-003150

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by July 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

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.

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003150

Page 2 of 6

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:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 13, 2025

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

Bernard T Rocca,Rebecca Rocca, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-003150

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by July 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

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.

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

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-003150

Page 4 of 6

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:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 13, 2025

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 MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY

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.

Page 1

FECEIVED 

AUG 0 6 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGA 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BERNARD T. ROCCA, IV and 

REBECCA ROCCA, 

7-1 

08/04/25 

).00 

Petitioners, 

Nt 

Erisiirs 

gi 

i 

4 

TEN FOFOVITS AND UMULIS 

MTT Docket No. 

LEELANAU TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Pezzetti, Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

600 E. Front St., Ste. 102 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

231-929-3450 

mschubert@mich-legal.com 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

Petitioners, Bernard T. Rocca, IV and Rebecca Rocca, through their attorneys, Pezzetti, 

Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C., petition this Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

Petitioners are husband and wife and reside at 1414 Forest Ave., Evanston, Illinois 60201. 

2; 

The property that is the subject of this Petition is located in Leelanau Township, County of 

Leelanau. 

3. 

The property at issue is an undeveloped parcel of land, with the common address of E Seth

Page 2

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14, 

Parcel 

1 is one of four parcels that were created by a split of a larger parcel. See Exhibit B 

— Certificate of Survey. 

This appeal involves Petitioner’s claim that the assessed and taxable values of the Property 

were incorrectly determined by the local assessing unit, Leelanau Township. 

The tax years at issue are the current year (2025) and later years. 

On or about March 11, 2025, Petitioner submitted a Petition the Board of Review. See 

attached Exhibit C — Petition to Board of Review. 

The values for Parcel 1, as affirmed by the 2025 March Board of Review Decision, are as 

follows: 

Tax year: 

2025 

2025 Taxable Value: 

$450,100 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$450,100 

Petitioner contends that the values for the Property are: 

Tax year; 

he 

2025 

True Cash Value 

i 

$700,000 

2025 Taxable Value: 

$350,000 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$350,000 

The amount in dispute for the taxable value of Parcel 

1 

is $100,100 and the amount in 

dispute related to the assessed value of Parcel 

1 

is $100,100. 

MCL 211.27a(1) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, property 

shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash value under section 3 of article IX of the state 

constitution of 1963.” 

For purposed of the General Property Tax Act, the term “true cash value” means the “usual

Page 3

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale,” MCL 

244.27(1). 

The term “true cash value” for purposes of The General Property Tax Act is equivalent to 

a property’s fair market value. Menards, Inc. v City of Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 522; 

891 NW2d 1 (2016). 

To determine the true cash value, the Property is to be valued at its highest and best use, 

which in this instance, given the current undeveloped state of the Property, the location on 

Lake Michigan, applicable zoning laws, and economic 

feasibility, 

is 

the continued 

residential classification. 

The three valuation methods used to determine the true cash value that have been found by 

this Tax Tribunal and the courts as acceptable and reliable are: (i) the cost-less depreciation 

approach; (ii) the sales-comparison or market approach; and (iii) the capitalization-of- 

income approach. Id. at 523. 

Based on an appraisal conducted by a certified appraiser incorporating valuation methods 

that the Tax Tribunal has found reliable for determining a Property’s true case value, 

Petitioner contends that the tru¢ cise value of the Property is $700,000, and accordingly, 

the taxable value and assessed value should be set at $350,000. See Exhibit D — Appraisal. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Tribunal correct the taxable value 

of the subject property and reduce the assessed value of the subject property based upon an accurate 

valuation of the property’s true cash value, award Petitioner costs pursuant to TTR 792.10217 and

Page 4

PEZZETTI, VERMETTEN, POPOVITS & 

UMULIS, P.C. 

Dated: 

July 24, 2025 

By, 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Attorneys for Petitioner

Page 5

EXHIBIT A

Page 6

Hichgan Deparment of Tse 

THIS 

1S ‘NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

This form is issued under the aulhority of P.A. 206 of 1883, Sec. 211.24 (c) and Sec.211.34c, as amended. This is a mods] assessment nolice fo be used by the local assessor. 

FROM 

LEELANAL TOWNSHIP 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

ATTN: ASSESSING DEPT 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

008-232-014-00 

PO BOX 338 

NORTHPORT, MI 49670-0338 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

E SETH RD 

NORTHPORT, MI 49670 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED 

ON 

ASSESSMENT 

he 

ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

% Exempt 

As "Homeowners Principal Reside 

00% 

ROCCAIV BERNARD T 

% Exempt 

As "Qualified Agricultural Property 

00% 

ROCCA REBECCA 

% Exempt 

As "MBT Industrial Personal™ 

00% 

611 KNOCH KNOLLS 

9% Exempt As "MBT Commercial Personal” 

00% 

NAPERVILLE, IL 60565 

Exempt 

As "Qualified Forest Property 

[] Yes 

No 

Exempt As "Development Property 

[| Yes 

No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

-00 PARCEL 1 PRT OF GOVT LOT 4 SEC 32 T32N R11W COMAT TH § % COR; TH N 00 DEG 35' 25" 

W 445.45 FT, TH N 87 DEG 

43' 21" W 346.26 FT TO POB; TH N 87 DEG 43' 21" W 76.01 FT, TH N 82 DEG 05' 15" 

W 1163.17 FT TO TH SHR OF LK MI; THN 2 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 402 

Residential 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 

402 

Residential’ 

ho 

PRIOR AMOUNT 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

YEAR: 

2024 

AMOUNT YEAR: 

5025 

ANE 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

562,300 

450,100 

112,200 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

562,300 

450,100 

-112,200 

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

; 

3 

SE 

hi 

Ci 

at 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

562.300 

450.100 

112.200 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in 2024 

WAS 

6. Assessor Change Reason(s): 

Spiit’Combined 

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031 

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be

Page 7

EXHIBIT

Page 8

C

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

Bernard T Rocca,Rebecca Rocca, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-003150

Township Of Leelanau, 

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 13, 2025

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

FECEIVED 

AUG 0 6 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGA 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BERNARD T. ROCCA, IV and 

REBECCA ROCCA, 

7-1 

08/04/25 

).00 

Petitioners, 

Nt 

Erisiirs 

gi 

i 

4 

TEN FOFOVITS AND UMULIS 

MTT Docket No. 

LEELANAU TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Pezzetti, Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

600 E. Front St., Ste. 102 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

231-929-3450 

mschubert@mich-legal.com 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

Petitioners, Bernard T. Rocca, IV and Rebecca Rocca, through their attorneys, Pezzetti, 

Vermetten, Popovits & Umulis, P.C., petition this Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

Petitioners are husband and wife and reside at 1414 Forest Ave., Evanston, Illinois 60201. 

2; 

The property that is the subject of this Petition is located in Leelanau Township, County of 

Leelanau. 

3. 

The property at issue is an undeveloped parcel of land, with the common address of E Seth

Page 2

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14, 

Parcel 

1 is one of four parcels that were created by a split of a larger parcel. See Exhibit B 

— Certificate of Survey. 

This appeal involves Petitioner’s claim that the assessed and taxable values of the Property 

were incorrectly determined by the local assessing unit, Leelanau Township. 

The tax years at issue are the current year (2025) and later years. 

On or about March 11, 2025, Petitioner submitted a Petition the Board of Review. See 

attached Exhibit C — Petition to Board of Review. 

The values for Parcel 1, as affirmed by the 2025 March Board of Review Decision, are as 

follows: 

Tax year: 

2025 

2025 Taxable Value: 

$450,100 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$450,100 

Petitioner contends that the values for the Property are: 

Tax year; 

he 

2025 

True Cash Value 

i 

$700,000 

2025 Taxable Value: 

$350,000 

2025 Assessed Value: 

$350,000 

The amount in dispute for the taxable value of Parcel 

1 

is $100,100 and the amount in 

dispute related to the assessed value of Parcel 

1 

is $100,100. 

MCL 211.27a(1) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, property 

shall be assessed at 50% of its true cash value under section 3 of article IX of the state 

constitution of 1963.” 

For purposed of the General Property Tax Act, the term “true cash value” means the “usual

Page 3

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

at auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale,” MCL 

244.27(1). 

The term “true cash value” for purposes of The General Property Tax Act is equivalent to 

a property’s fair market value. Menards, Inc. v City of Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 522; 

891 NW2d 1 (2016). 

To determine the true cash value, the Property is to be valued at its highest and best use, 

which in this instance, given the current undeveloped state of the Property, the location on 

Lake Michigan, applicable zoning laws, and economic 

feasibility, 

is 

the continued 

residential classification. 

The three valuation methods used to determine the true cash value that have been found by 

this Tax Tribunal and the courts as acceptable and reliable are: (i) the cost-less depreciation 

approach; (ii) the sales-comparison or market approach; and (iii) the capitalization-of- 

income approach. Id. at 523. 

Based on an appraisal conducted by a certified appraiser incorporating valuation methods 

that the Tax Tribunal has found reliable for determining a Property’s true case value, 

Petitioner contends that the tru¢ cise value of the Property is $700,000, and accordingly, 

the taxable value and assessed value should be set at $350,000. See Exhibit D — Appraisal. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Tribunal correct the taxable value 

of the subject property and reduce the assessed value of the subject property based upon an accurate 

valuation of the property’s true cash value, award Petitioner costs pursuant to TTR 792.10217 and

Page 4

PEZZETTI, VERMETTEN, POPOVITS & 

UMULIS, P.C. 

Dated: 

July 24, 2025 

By, 

Michelle L. Schubert (P86331) 

Attorneys for Petitioner

Page 5

EXHIBIT A

Page 6

Hichgan Deparment of Tse 

THIS 

1S ‘NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

This form is issued under the aulhority of P.A. 206 of 1883, Sec. 211.24 (c) and Sec.211.34c, as amended. This is a mods] assessment nolice fo be used by the local assessor. 

FROM 

LEELANAL TOWNSHIP 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

ATTN: ASSESSING DEPT 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

008-232-014-00 

PO BOX 338 

NORTHPORT, MI 49670-0338 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

E SETH RD 

NORTHPORT, MI 49670 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED 

ON 

ASSESSMENT 

he 

ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

% Exempt 

As "Homeowners Principal Reside 

00% 

ROCCAIV BERNARD T 

% Exempt 

As "Qualified Agricultural Property 

00% 

ROCCA REBECCA 

% Exempt 

As "MBT Industrial Personal™ 

00% 

611 KNOCH KNOLLS 

9% Exempt As "MBT Commercial Personal” 

00% 

NAPERVILLE, IL 60565 

Exempt 

As "Qualified Forest Property 

[] Yes 

No 

Exempt As "Development Property 

[| Yes 

No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

-00 PARCEL 1 PRT OF GOVT LOT 4 SEC 32 T32N R11W COMAT TH § % COR; TH N 00 DEG 35' 25" 

W 445.45 FT, TH N 87 DEG 

43' 21" W 346.26 FT TO POB; TH N 87 DEG 43' 21" W 76.01 FT, TH N 82 DEG 05' 15" 

W 1163.17 FT TO TH SHR OF LK MI; THN 2 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 402 

Residential 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 

402 

Residential’ 

ho 

PRIOR AMOUNT 

CURRENT TENTATIVE 

CHANGE FROM 

YEAR: 

2024 

AMOUNT YEAR: 

5025 

ANE 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

562,300 

450,100 

112,200 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

562,300 

450,100 

-112,200 

3. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

; 

3 

SE 

hi 

Ci 

at 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

562.300 

450.100 

112.200 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in 2024 

WAS 

6. Assessor Change Reason(s): 

Spiit’Combined 

The 2025 Inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.031 

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be

Page 7

EXHIBIT

Page 8

C

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.