Brain Tadajewski Petitioner V Township Of Maple Ridge Respondent

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Brain Tadajewski,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Township Of Maple Ridge,

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.

NOTE: The parties may not request an informal settlement conference to discuss an 

appeal of a principal residence exemption that was denied by either the Michigan 

Department of Treasury or a County. Also, state taxes levied by the Michigan 

Department of Treasury, such as income taxes, are not subject to the informal 

settlement conference process.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Page 2 of 2

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.

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

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: 

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

Brain Tadajewski,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Township Of Maple Ridge,

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.

NOTE: The parties may not request an informal settlement conference to discuss an 

appeal of a principal residence exemption

Page 4

M

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

i 

RECEIVED 

Wg 

AUG 0 4 2026 

8 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / UNCAPPING 

MTT DOCKET NO. 26 000555 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

Unit of Government 

Maple Ridge Township 

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

PO Box 25 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Rogers City 

Mi 

49779 

Telephone 

Number: 

mei 

989 734 3555 

Email Address (do nol enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): 

info@assessingoffice.com 

Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

Ml: 

Last Name: 

Allan/Kelli/Cara 

Berg/Ableidinger/Rose 

Firm 

Name (if 

any): 

. 

. 

mt 

Assessing Office 

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

PO Box 25 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Rogers City 

Mi 

49779 

Telephone 

Number: 

meTO89 734 3555 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send ali correspondence via email): 

info@assessingoffice.com 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

if no, list all parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. Attach a 

separate sheet if necessary. 

OJves 

Ono 

Not AppHicable 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more for alf tax years at issue? 

| %] Yes 

[1] 

No

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Petitioner has contacted the assessor on multiple occasions in regards to the Road Right of Way. 

The description on the deed describes a total of 4.5 acres. However, any area under a public road right of way is exempt from taxation, The statutory 

standard road right of way width in Michigan is 66 feat, or 33 feet on each side of the centerline. Based on this and the survey provided to our office by 

the Petitioner, the subject properly is being 

valued as 4.3 acres of valued land and 0.2 acres of land within a right of way with no value being assessed. 

The survey does not provide a clear descriplion or dimensions of the area encompassed by the right of way. Itis unclear if the 66ft width of the roadway 

fails entirely within the subject property or if the subject property foliows the centerline of the roadway. The right of way land area was calculated as 

265' x 33' = 8745 sq ft = 0.2 acres. Without a clear description and dimensions of said right of way, the right of way information must be estimated 

based on the information that has been provided to us. 

A survey with clear dimensions and boundaries of the road right of way has not been provided. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

{F PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 

MM] Yes 

[| No 

March 

a July 

J December 

Hf yes, check which BOR Petltioner attended: 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? [i] Yes 

[Hl] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [H] Yes 

Ne 

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

0 Yes 

No 

If so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE 

When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? 

Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? 

Section 6: Valuation Information *use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Pareetfomber 041 013 000 672 02 

Classification of Property: 

 Realld 

Personal 

{J {check one) 

Agricultural [1 

Commercial 

3 

Industrial [1 

Residential i 

Timber-Cutover [] 

Developmental [J 

 Utiiity [J (check one) 

Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Vaiue) established 

| Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: 

by 

the Board of Review: 

y 

33 (,00

Page 3

03/20/2026 

1 

2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION 

FROM 

' 

Assessing Department 

Maple Ridge Township 

P.O. Box 25 

Rogers City, MI 49779 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address 

and legal description optional.): 

TADAJEWSKI ROBERT & BRIAN TAL 

185 GERONIMO Rb 

041-013-000-672-02 

488 GERONIMO RD 

Alpena MI 49707 

EL 

EEL 

SUL Lea VEU A ATAU L 

4 

453 WU YUL watna 

NY Sali 2 

a 

THS 83D OIME 190.0 FTTH S 69D 25 M40S E 67.76 FTTH § 

06D 59M W 170.0 FT TH S 11D 21M 248 E 500.85 FT TO POB 

PART OF SW 1/4 BEING ELY 495.58 FT OF PARCEL # 22 

THUNDER BAY VILLAGE ACRES #2 EXC COM AT § 1/4 

COR TH N 86D 18M 20S W 374.83 FT ALG S SEC LN TO POB 

TH CONT WLY 120.75 FT TH N 03D 41M 40S E 1035.09 

FT 

TH 

FRAT AMY SAND TT 

3 En £0 EIR RA TANKS REY RNs SIE 

A aan 0d ere 

‘HIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS 

401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary 

to compute your assessment and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 041-013-000-672-02 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments: 

DENIED, PROVIDE SURVEY OF ROAD RIGHT AWAY 

[2026 

ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

33,600 

| 

[2026 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

33,600 

| 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

[2026 ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

24,671 

| 

[2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

24,671 

|2026 PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 

100.0000 

| 

Please feel free to contact the assessor at the address listed above or call if you have any questions. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, further appeal may be made to the Michigan Tax

Page 4

N

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

Brain Tadajewski,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Township Of Maple Ridge,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: July 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Brain Tadajewski,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Township Of Maple Ridge,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: July 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

Brain Tadajewski,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Township Of Maple Ridge,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

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

is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no authority over 

those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.1 Further, 

the Tribunal also has no authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not 

establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a 

transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., 

“an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).2 Rather, the facts 

alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical 

error or mutual mistake of fact. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The 

appeal shall continue for the 2026 tax year(s) only.

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: June 30, 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

1 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

2 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Brain Tadajewski,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000555

Township Of Maple Ridge,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

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

is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no authority over 

those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.3 Further, 

the Tribunal also has no authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not 

establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a 

transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., 

“an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).4 Rather, the facts 

alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical 

error or mutual mistake of fact. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The 

appeal shall continue for the 2026 tax year(s) only.

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: June 30, 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

3 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

4 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax 

disputes.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review 

Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Brain

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Tadajewski

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

488, Geronimo Road

488, Geronimo Road

488, Geronimo Road

City or Town

Alpena

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49707

Telephone Number

989-657-3943

Fax Number

___-___-____

E-mail Address

02legalemail@gmail.com

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Firm Name (if any)

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

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.

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

488 Geronimo Rd

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Alpena

Michigan

49707

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Maple Ridge (ALPENA)

County 

Alpena

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Value, Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a principal residence or qualified agricultural exemption)

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

The 2026 assessment includes a fabricated 33' × 265' right‑of‑way (ROW) dimension that does not appear in any recorded document, certified survey, court order, 

legal description, or controlling ROW record. This fabricated dimension was used to calculate land area and value, resulting in an incorrect assessed value and 

taxable value. See attachments.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025-2026

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? No

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND upload the BOR decision: 

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

Assessment Change Notice was not sent to Petitioner

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Parcel Identification Number: 041‑013‑000‑672‑02

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR:

33600

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

24671

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

67200 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

33600

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

24671

Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal*

Parcel Identification Number:

 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review:

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

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

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

Fee Information

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

Yes

Are you appealing ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption?

No

If you answered yes to either or both of these questions, you are not required to pay any filing fees.

The filing fee is based on the greater of the 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, not to exceed a total filing fee of $1,000.

If your property is residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $125.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $200.00

$Over $500,000.00 $300.00

If your property is NOT residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $250.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as indicated above.

If your property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is $100,000.01 or greater the appeal does not qualify for 

Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed.

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Brian Tadajewski

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

Michigan Tax Tribunal

Docket No. 26-000555

Parcel No. 041-013-000-672-02

Petitioner: Brian Tadajewski

 PETITIONER’S SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE FILING:

 TRIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS CONFIRMING NO RIGHT-OF-WAY 

 DIMENSIONS WERE ESTABLISHED

Petitioner submits the following supplemental evidence for inclusion in the record of this

appeal. These transcript excerpts come from proceedings in the 26th Circuit Court (Case No.

2025-3160-CK) and directly address the right-of-way (ROW) issue that forms the basis of the

2026 assessment dispute.

These excerpts are provided to clarify the factual record regarding the origin of the

assessor’s claimed 33' × 265' ROW dimension.

 I. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TESTIMONY

During hearings held on November 19, 2024 and December 3, 2024, Judge K. Edward

Black made clear on the record that:

• the Court did not establish any ROW dimensions,

• the assessor’s claimed 33' × 265' measurement was not part of the Court’s ruling,

• the Equalization/Assessing Department’s statements regarding ROW width were not

derived from the Court’s order, and

• the Court’s ruling did not authorize or identify any specific ROW width on the parcel.

These statements directly contradict the assessor’s justification for using a fabricated

33' × 265' ROW dimension in the 2026 assessment.

 ( 1 of 2 )

Page 2

II. TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS

Exhibit F – Transcript Excerpt (November 19, 2024 Hearing)

THE COURT: “…asking for enforcement of a claimed right of way because of the tax

assessor/equalization indicating that he wasn’t assessed something. But that has

nothing to do with this court or any determination that was previously made. The

Court’s determination was made, and the statute literally says that all highways are

four rods in width. That’s 66 feet.”

Exhibit G – Transcript Excerpt (December 3, 2024 Hearing)

THE COURT: “The statute is directly contrary to that, and it says it’s four rods, which is

66 feet. So, I don’t care what the Equalization Department says. That’s not the ruling

of the Court.”

 III. PURPOSE OF SUBMISSION

These transcript excerpts are submitted solely to clarify that:

• no court order established a 33' × 265' ROW,

• no certified survey or recorded document contains such a dimension, and

• the assessor’s reliance on that fabricated dimension is unsupported by the legal record.

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal consider these excerpts as part of the

evidentiary record in evaluating the validity of the 2026 assessment.

Date: April 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Brian Tadajewski 

 

488 Geronimo Road 

Alpena, MI 49707 

Email: 02legalemail@gmail.com 

Phone: 989-657-3943 

 ( 2 of 2 )

Page 3

Exhibit F: Trail Court Nov 19, 2024 Transcripts denying Bergs Boundary Lines 4-6 

Exhibit F: Trail Court Nov 19, 2024 Transcripts denying Bergs Boundary Lines 4-6 

VO 

0 Nn 

AWN 

LT SS 

wo SG 

-_-O 

Ww 

® 

NY 

WM 

ew 

NN 

-= 

© 

24 

25 

MR. 

HENN: 

Correct. 

THE COURT: 

-- asking for enforcement 

of 

a claimed 

right 

of way because 

of the tax assessor/equalization 

indicating that he wasn’t assessed something. 

But that has 

nothing to do with this court or any determination that was 

previously made. 

The Court’s determination was made, 

and the 

statute literally says that 

all highways are four rods 

in 

width. 

That’s 

66 feet. 

MR. 

HENN: 

Correct. 

THE COURT: 

So, 

that 

is 

a 66-foot-wide road. 

MR. 

HENN: 

Correct. 

And there's 

no question, 

based 

on the photos and based on, 

I believe, 

the admissions that 

Plaintiff made in his original motion, 

that 

if you take the 

66 

feet, 

everything that 

he had put out there was within that 

area. 

I mean, 

he measured out, 

there’s 

a photo 

in his brief 

that measured out 

33 feet from his eastern boundary. 

And 

it 

showed -- 

I believe he said in the motion that the mailbox and 

those other encroachments were at least 

ten feet beyond that. 

Well, 

if you take the 

66 

feet, 

not the 

33 feet, 

that’s 

an 

admission that 

all 

of those encroachments were well within the 

66 foot right 

of way. 

And so, 

Mr. 

Brege’s here, 

if the Court 

would like 

to hear testimony. 

But 

frankly, 

we believe based 

on the affidavit and based on -- 

THE COURT: 

Do you have the survey? 

MR. 

HENN: 

I 

do.

Page 4

Exhibit G: Trail Court Dec 3, 2024 TRANSCRIPTS line 6-8 

EE 

BE - "RS 

J— 

FS 

a 

rE 

ry 

vO 

0 

NN 

Wn EWN 

=O 

25 

Exhibit G: Trail Court Dec 3, 2024 TRANSCRIPTS line 6-8 

indicates that the road is only 

33 feet wide, 

correct? 

THE DEFENDANT: 

Yes, 

that’s my response. 

THE COURT: 

OK. 

THE DEFENDANT: 

And it 

-- 

THE COURT: 

The statute 

is directly contrary to 

that, 

and 

it 

says it’s 

four rods, 

which 

is 

66 feet. 

So, 

I 

don’t care what the Equalization Department says. 

That’s 

not 

the ruling of the Court. 

And so, 

your request for that 

is, 

again, 

denied. 

The Court made the prior ruling. 

And at this 

point, 

you're putting me 

in 

a position 

-- 

I tried to warn you 

before, 

that 

you needed to obtain counsel before you did these 

things. 

You're leaving me no choice. 

I forewarned 

you, 

that 

if you didn’t follow the Court’s ruling, 

that the Court was 

going to end 

up having to order attorney’s fees. 

THE DEFENDANT: 

Well, 

Your Honor 

—-- 

THE COURT: 

Go ahead. 

THE DEFENDANT: 

They never 

(inaudible) 

prior notice, 

according 

to MCL 247 

-- 

THE COURT: 

Pardon? 

THE DEFENDANT: 

They never provided 30-day prior 

notice. 

THE COURT: 

Of what? 

THE DEFENDANT: 

To remove anything that they think 

may be 

an encroachment inside 

a right of way they think they 

might 

be. 

14

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

To: Alpena Township Board of Review Date: Feb 23, 2026

From: Brian Tadajewski

Parcel Number: 041-013-000-672-02: 488 Geronimo Rd, Alpena Mich 49707

Subject: Objection to 2026 Property Tax Assessment – Incorrect Right-of-Way (ROW)

 Mr Tadajewski is objecting to the 2026 property tax assessment because the assessment 

includes a “33-foot by 265-foot right-of-way (ROW)” on Mr Tadajewskis parcel that is not 

supported by any recorded document, certified survey, easement, or court order.

 This ROW dimension appears on the taxation assessment, Because the ROW dimension is 

not supported by any official or recorded source, the assessment is based on fictional 

information and must be corrected.

 Supporting Documentation

1. Exhibit A: August 16, 2023 Court Order 

 – Contains no ROW dimensions and does not establish a 33' × 265' right-of-way.

2. Exhibit B: Berg Assessing- Stating the dimension obtained from an Aug 16, 2023 court order

a. Berg Assessing Affidavit 

b. Berg Assessing Trial Court Pleadings

3. Exhibit C: 2025 Tax Assessment- Includes a 33' × 265' ROW that does not appear in any 

certified, recorded document or prior tax records

4. Exhibit D: Court of Appeals Order – Confirms the boundary issue was not resolved and 

remains unsettled. Mr Tadajewski refiled with COA acceptance.

5. Exhibit E: Certified Recorded Controlling ROW- Does not include a mention of 33ft by 265ft.

 Requested Action

1. Remove the unsupported 33' × 265' ROW dimension from the assessment record.

2. Correct the property description to match the recorded documents.

3. Adjust the taxable value accordingly based on the corrected description.

This objection is based solely on the factual discrepancy between the recorded property 

description and the assessment record.

 Sincerely,

 /s/ Brian Tadajewski 

 Date: Feb 23,2026 02legalemail@gmail.com

Page 2

Exhibit A-1

HENN LESPERANCE PLC 

Exhibit A-1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

IN THE 26" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALPENA 

BOARD OF COUNTY ROAD 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF 

ALPENA, 

CASE NO: 22-1899 -CH 

Plaintiffs / Counter-Defendant, 

HON. K. EDWARD BLACK 

v 

BRIAN TADAJEWSKI, 

Defendant / Counter-Plaintiff, 

Vv 

ALPENA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

Defendant. 

William L. Henn (P61132) 

) 

Brian Tadajewski, Pro per 

Andrew J. Spica (P83559) 

488 Geronimo Road 

Natasha L. Rao (P85102) 

Alpena, MI 49707 

HENN LESPERANCE, PLC 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Alpena CRC 

GREGORY W. MAIR (P67465) 

32 Market Avenue SW, Suite 400 

Attorney for Def. Alpena Public Schools 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

300 St. Andrews Road, Suite 302 

(616) 551-1611 

Saginaw, MI 48638 

wih@hennlesperance.com 

(989) 790-0960 

ais 

hennlesperance.com 

gmair@owdpc.com 

nir@hennlesperance.com 

Gl 

LAINT) 

S 

ON 

At a session of the 26" Circuit Court in the County 

of Alpena, on the 25% day of July 2023. 

PRESENT: Honorable K. Edward Black, 

Circuit Court Judge 

This matter having come 

before 

the Court 

on 

Plaintiff Board 

of County 

Road 

Commissioners of the County of Alpena’s Motion for Summary Disposition, the Court having 

read the briefs and on hearing oral arguments and being fully advised in the premises, the Court 

hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for summary disposition as to all counts. Therefore:

Page 3

Exhibit A-2

Exhibit A-2 

EXHIBIT B - Aug 16, 2023 Court Order 

IT 15 HEREBY ORDERED thas the exivety of the presently improved partion of 

Geronimo Road located south of the Plat of Thunder Bay Village No. 4 is hereby declared 

2 public 

Iighway established by user, pursasnt #5 MCL 221.20, for the seasons stated on the record. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defeadant’s cacsoachments sod other wmperaitied 

work performed within the Geronimo Road right-of way constitute a public misance, pursasat 1 

MCR 3.601, and 

» story tzespass upon the Gesomimo Road right-of-way, pursuant 

1p MCL 

2307. Defiadant is ORDERED fo remove sy existing encroschmenss, and is herby 

ENJOINED from placing any fither obstructions or performing sey uapermitiod work within 

any part of the Geronimo Road right-of-way, pursaasst 10 MCR 3.601. for the reasons stated on the 

record, 

Any further obatractions or wrpermitied work performed within any portion of the 

Geroito Road right af-way shail coostitute a ststutcry trespass upon a public highway, subject 

10 the treble demages provision of MCL 230.7. for the reasons stated on the record. 

This is a final order, as it resolves all remaining claims between te parties, and hereby 

closes 

the case 

P0:€ ST0Z/8/6 VOOW Aq AIATHOHY 

S 

Wd 0

Page 4

Exhibit B- a-1 Berg Assessing Affidavit

Exhibit B- a-1 Berg Assessing Affidavit 

ALLAN BERG being sworn, states: 

1. 

Tam a Defendant and President in the above captioned action. 

2. 

I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this affidavit, and if called on to testify [ 

will attest that the facts stated herein are true and accurate. 

3. 

1 have now reviewed the counts contained in the complaint including Quiet Title, FOIA 

Violations, Alteration of Public Records, False Claim to Land, Willful Neglect of Duty, 

Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty 

Slander of Title, and Conspiracy to Commit Property Fraud. 

4. 

1am the President of Berg Assessing and Consulting, Inc. 

5. 

Berg Assessing and Consulting, Inc. is contracted to perform assessing services for Maple 

Ridge Township, Alpena County, State of Michigan. 

6. 

In that capacity Berg Assessing and Consulting, Inc. was approached by the Plaintiff in the 

above captioned matter on or about January 16, 2024, seeking a recalculation of the assessed 

value of Plaintiffs property commonly known as 488 Geronimo Rad, Alpena, MI 49707. 

7. 

Berg Assessing and Consulting, Inc. determined that given the Court Order signed August 

16, 2023, as well as other documents provided by Plaintiff that the assessed value of his 

property should be reduced in light of the encumbrance. 

8. 

Berg Assessing and Consulting’s reduction of the assessed value of the propetty in no way 

changes

Page 5

Exh

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

Re: Petition for 2026 Assessment Appeal

Parcel No. 041-013-000-672-02

Petitioner: Brian Tadajewski

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed please find Petitioner’s 2026 assessment appeal regarding Parcel No. 041-013-000-

672-02, located at 488 Geronimo Road, Alpena, Michigan.

This appeal concerns a fabricated 33' × 265' right-of-way (ROW) dimension that appears in the 

2026 assessment record but does not appear in any recorded document, certified survey, 

court order, or legal description. The Township Board of Review:

• 

ignored all submitted evidence,

• 

demanded a document that does not exist, and

• 

denied Petitioner notice and the opportunity to appear.

The petition details the factual background, statutory violations, procedural defects, and 

supporting exhibits demonstrating that the assessment is unsupported and must be 

corrected.

Please process this appeal and notify Petitioner of any additional information required.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brian Tadajewski

488 Geronimo Road

Alpena, MI 49707

Email: 02legalemail@gmail.com

Phone: (989) 657-3943

Page 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Brian Tadajewski appeals the 2026 Maple Ridge Township Board of Review decision 

for Parcel No. 041-013-000-672-02. The assessment is based on a fabricated 33' × 265' right-of=-

way (ROW) dimension that appears in no recorded document, certified survey, court order, or 

legal description. The assessment is based on a fabricated right-of-way (ROW) dimension that 

does not appear in any recorded document.

The Board Denied the objection by ignoring all submitted evidence, demanded a document 

that does not exist, while dening Petitioner notice and the opportunity to appear.

This violates:

- MCL 211.10e(1)– assessments must be based on actual property characteristics. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – true cash value must be determined using verified data. 

- MCL 211.30(4) – Board of Review must provide notice and opportunity to be heard. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17– due process. 

- Const 1963, art 9, §3 – uniform taxation. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – decisions must be supported by competent, material, and 

substantial evidence.

 Supporting Case Law 

Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379 (1998) — assessments must be based 

on accurate, verified property data.

 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

 1. No Recorded Document Establishes a 33' × 265' ROW

 Violations:

- MCL 211.10e(1) – assessor must use actual physical characteristics. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – fabricated dimensions cannot be used to determine value. 

- MCL 565.201 et seq. – only recorded instruments establish boundaries. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – fabricated facts cannot support an assessment.

 Supporting Case Law 

Jones & Laughlin Steel v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348 (1992) — assessment invalid where 

based on incorrect or unverified property data.

 ( 1 of 6 )

Page 3

2. Assessor Admits the Dimension Was Based on Assumption, Not Evidence, (Exhibit A 1-2). 

 Violations

- MCL 211.10e(1) – prohibits assumption-based assessments. 

- MCL 211.27(1) – requires factual valuation. 

- MCL 211.3 – assessor cannot alter boundaries. 

- MRPC 3.3(a)(1) – prohibits false statements to a tribunal.

 Supporting Case Law 

Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473 (1991) — valuation 

must be based on verified data, not assumptions.

 3. Board of Review Demanded a Survey from Tadajewski That Does Not Exist, (Exhibit B) 

furthermore it would Berg Assessing responsibility to produce a survey of his fabricated ROW 

claim. 

 Violations

- MCL 211.30(4)- Board must review evidence, not shift burden. 

- MCL 211.10e(1) – assessor must justify assessment. 

- MCR 2.312 – cannot demand nonexistent documents. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process.

 Supporting Case Law 

Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1979) — government cannot impose impossible 

evidentiary burdens.

 4. Boundary Issue Remains Unresolved as noted within the Michigan Court of Appeals order, 

(Exhibit C).

 Violations:

- MCL 211.27(1) – cannot assess based on unresolved or speculative boundaries. 

- MCL 600.2932 – boundary disputes require judicial determination. 

- MTT Rule 205.1102(1) – requires competent evidence.

 Supporting Case Law 

Killips v Mannisto, 244 Mich App 256 (2001) — boundary disputes require clear, recorded 

evidence; assumptions are impermissible.

5. Petitioner Was Denied Notice and Opportunity to Appear

 Petitioner received no notice of a hearing date… despite the Board stating Petitioner 

‘appeared.’ (Exhibit B).

 Violations

- MCL 211.30(4) – mandatory notice requirement.

 ( 2 )

Page 4

- MCL 211.30a – taxpayer must be allowed to present evidence. 

- Const 1963, art 1, §17 – due process.

- MTT Rule 205.1103(2) – requires fair hearing procedures.

 Supporting Case Law 

Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50 (2009) — failure to provide notice violates due 

process and invalidates the decision.

6. Board of Review Failed to Review Any Submitted Exhibits (Exhibit D) as separate pdf 

attachment.

Petitioner submitted multiple exhibits demonstrating that no recorded document, certified

survey, court order, or legal description contains the fabricated 33' × 265' ROW dimension.

These exhibits included:

- Exhibit A – August 16, 2023 Court Order (contains no ROW dimensions). 

- Exhibit B – Berg Assessing Affidavit and pleadings (admitting reliance on statutory 

presumption). 

- Exhibit C – 2025 Tax Assessment (shows fabricated 33' × 265' ROW). 

- Exhibit D – Court of Appeals Order (boundary issue unresolved). 

- Exhibit E – Certified Recorded ROW (contains no 33' × 265' dimension). 

Despite receiving these exhibits, the Board’s denial letter:

- did not reference a single exhibit, 

- did not address any evidence submitted, 

- did not dispute any factual point raised, 

- did not identify any document supporting the fabricated ROW, and 

- instead demanded a “survey of road right-of-way,” a document that does not exist.

This demonstrates that the Board did not review the evidence presented and issued a denial

without factual

Page 5

II

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

2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION 

Assessing Department 

Maple Ridge Township 

P.O. Box 25 

Rogers City, MI 49779 

FROM 

N 

3 

AME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address 

TADAJEWSKI ROBERT & BRIAN TA 

RA 

158 GEE ONe 

041-013-000-672-02 

488 GERONIMO RD 

Alpena M1 49707 

T3INR7E SEC 13 COM AT'S 1/4 COR OF SEC TH N 86D 18M 

20S W ALG S SEC LN 495.58 FT TH N 03D 41M 40S E 1035.09 

FTTH 'S 73D 29M 07S E 142.66 FT TH S 06D 59M W 320.0 FT 

TH S 83D 0IME 190.0 FT TH S 69D 25 M 40S E 67.76 FT TH S 

06D 59M W 170.0 FT TH S 11D 21M 24S E 500.85 FT TO POB 

PART OF SW 1/4 BEING ELY 495.58 FT OF PARCEL # 22 

THUNDER BAY VILLAGE ACRES # 2 EXC COM AT S 1/4 COR 

THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED 

401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary 

to compute your assessment and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 

041-013-000-672-02 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments 

DENIED. PROVIDE SURVEY OF ROAD RIGHT AWAY 

[2026 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

33,600 

[2026 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

33,600 

| 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

[2026 ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

24,671 

| 

[2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

24,671 

| 

| 2026 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 

100.0000 

Please feel free to contact the assessor at the address listed above or call if you have any questions. 

If you disagree with the decision of the Roard 

of Review regarding tentative taxable value, further appeal may 

be made to the Michigan 

Tax 

Tribunal, by submitting a petition (available on their website at http:/www.mi.gov/taxtrib) by May 31 for Commercial Real, Industrial Real, 

Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property by July 31 for Agricultural Real, Residential 

Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property. 

Property Classification appeals ONLY may be appealed to the State Tax Commission by submitting a petition by June 30th and visiting their 

webiste at http://www.mi.gov/statetaxcommission

Page 2

7 041-013-000-672-02 

ME -agat. 

00g 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

618 (Rev. 11-12) 

Petition to Board of Review 

L-4035 

This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing is voluntary, however you may not appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

or the State Tax Commission unless you first protest to the Board of Review. 

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT 

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type) 

Petitioner's Name (If Other than Owner. 

Please Print 

or Type) 

| 

Brian Tadajewski 

Township or City 

County 

Maple ridge 

Alpena 

The undersigned protests the assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or the property classification and/or the qualified 

agricultural property exemption of the following described property: 

Property denied (Parcal code required, Properly adress & legal description optional) 

| 

esciption optic 

PRE 

| 

5 

; 

NAD 

il 

MAHL AU 

| 

HH 

Protested Item 

x] Assessed Value 

Tentative Taxable Value 

[| Classification 

|] Qualified Agricultural 

Property Exemption 

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT 

(Complete this section for a protest of assessed value and/or tentative taxable value) 

488 Geronimo Rd, Alpena Mich 49707 

Assessed Amount 

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value 

[Tentative Taxable Value 

Year 

$33,600 

2. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION 

(Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classification in 

accordance with Section 211.34c of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular 

classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence or qualified agricultural property.) 

pe 

| Classification of property on this year's assessment roll 

= 

. 

| Classification should be (check one of the following): 

| 

[J Agricuttural 

[J industrial 

[J Timber Cutover 

[7] utility (Personal Property Only) 

| 

[7] commercial 

[# Residential 

[] Developmental 

3. PROTEST OF EXEMPTION FOR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 

(If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of local school operating tax for qualified agricultural 

property, the owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. 

THE BOARD OF REVIEW 

HAS NO AUTHORITY 

TO CONSIDER OR ACT 

UPON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES.) 

= qualified agricultural 

exemption granted by 

(Enter 01f 

on 

Percent qualified agricultural 

1 requested by owner (Enter 100 if full 

ene 

exemption requested) 

4. REASON FOR PROTEST 

[State reasonts) or protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or 

ion and/or 

qualified 

property 

Property has been Assessed to include a 33ft by 265ft public right of way, no court order or such contains this 

dimensional boundary. 

see attached court records. Assessment records need to be corrected to insure correct 

taxation of property 

| 

1 

CERTIFICATION 

| 

si 

i 

i 

Date 

pt 

/s/ Brian Tadajewski 

“Feb 23,2026 

Address 

| 

Phone Number 

488 Geronimo Rd, Alpena Mich 49707 

(989) 657-3943 

www.michigan.govitreasury

Page 3

Form 618, Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

MAR N= 

1-01-00 b)A-(A 

1. ASSESSED VALUE 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the 

reasons is-action 

bel 

Denied 

 [_] Assessed Value Changed From 

| 

Jt 

ic 

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board 

4 

| 

Chairperson: X] Yes 

[] oC 

Member: [2 Yes 

OJ No 

Member: 

Yes [= No Rive 

Ini 

Reagan for board action 

% 

E bo soTete STUY BC

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax 

disputes.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review 

Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Brain

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Tadajewski

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

488, Geronimo Road

488, Geronimo Road

488, Geronimo Road

City or Town

Alpena

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49707

Telephone Number

989-657-3943

Fax Number

___-___-____

E-mail Address

02legalemail@gmail.com

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Firm Name (if any)

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

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.

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

488 Geronimo Rd

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Alpena

Michigan

49707

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Maple Ridge (ALPENA)

County 

Alpena

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Value, Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a principal residence or qualified agricultural exemption)

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

The 2026 assessment includes a fabricated 33' × 265' right‑of‑way (ROW) dimension that does not appear in any recorded document, certified survey, court order, 

legal description, or controlling ROW record. This fabricated dimension was used to calculate land area and value, resulting in an incorrect assessed value and 

taxable value. See attachments.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025-2026

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? No

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND upload the BOR decision: 

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

Assessment Change Notice was not sent to Petitioner

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Parcel Identification Number: 041‑013‑000‑672‑02

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR:

33600

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

24671

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

67200 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

33600

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

24671

Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal*

Parcel Identification Number:

 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review:

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

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

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

Fee Information

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

Yes

Are you appealing ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption?

No

If you answered yes to either or both of these questions, you are not required to pay any filing fees.

The filing fee is based on the greater of the 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, not to exceed a total filing fee of $1,000.

If your property is residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $125.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $200.00

$Over $500,000.00 $300.00

If your property is NOT residential property (see MCL 205.762) and

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Filing Fee is:

$100,000.00 and under $250.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as indicated above.

If your property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is $100,000.01 or greater the appeal does not qualify for 

Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed.

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Brian Tadajewski

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.