Brandon Por, Petitioner V Township Of Cato, 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 

Brandon Por, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924 

 

Cato Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 ORDER HOLDING 

PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On September 16, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order placing Petitioner in default. In 

response, on September 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a copy of their petition to the March 

Board of Review (BOR) and a signed affidavit from Petitioner’s authorized 

representative stating they never received a copy of the BOR results. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order 

holding Petitioner in default because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice giving 

rise to the appeal, i.e. BOR decision.1 The pleadings and accompanying documentation 

indicate that Petitioner is appealing the true cash, state equalized, and taxable values 

for Parcel No. 59-004-550-047-00 for the 2025 tax year. While Petitioner asserts to 

having protested to the BOR, Respondent’s answer, filed on October 16, 2025, 

indicates Respondent never received Petitioner’s protest to the BOR, and thus no BOR 

decision was made. Therefore, the Tribunal finds good cause to vacate the default 

order. 

 

Moreover, the Tribunal finds it has no authority over this parcel under MCL 205.735a(3), 

nor any authority over Petitioner’s appeal as a final decision of the BOR is a prerequisite 

for invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.2 Because Respondent never received 

Petitioner’s protest to the March BOR, Petitioner failed to complete the prerequisite step 

of appealing to the BOR and thus failed to invoke the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction 

over this proceeding. In Sixarp LLC v Byron Twp,3 the Michigan Supreme Court 

reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is 

statutory by nature. The Court stated: 

 

 

1 The order further stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

2 See MCL 205.731. 

3 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002924 

Page 2 of 3 

 

MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that 

governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” 

We therefore overrule Parkview4 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the 

protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere 

“procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and 

not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if 

necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived 

the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.5 

 

The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon in Sixarp is applicable in this 

case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction prerequisite that a residential 

valuation be appealed to the March BOR prior to a petition being filed with the Tribunal. 

MCL 205.735a(3) controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The Tribunal has 

no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.6 “[S]imply because the 

plaintiffs' underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and may even be meritorious, 

does not excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim within the applicable statutory 

period of limitation.”7 

 

The Tribunal notes that the answer in this case contends that Respondent did not 

receive Petitioner’s protest to the March BOR. This contention of improper notice, if 

actionable, would require a determination by an applicable authority that the purported 

error resulted in a due-process violation. As explained above, the Tribunal lacks any 

equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. Jurisdiction as a result 

of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory obligation, if there was 

any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as a matter of equity.8 

Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the September 16, 2025 Order Holding Petitioner in Default is 

VACATED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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

 

 

 

4 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 

5 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted). 

6 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 

7 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 

8 See Sixarp at 4, 8. The court held respectively that “the Court of Appeals remedied the violation by 

vesting

Page 3

MT

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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.i 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 16, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

i “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Page 2 of 6

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.ii 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 16, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

ii “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Page 4 of 6

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

Page 5

STATE OF

Page 6

MTT Docket No.

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 

Brandon Por, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924 

 

Cato Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 ORDER HOLDING 

PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On September 16, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order placing Petitioner in default. In 

response, on September 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a copy of their petition to the March 

Board of Review (BOR) and a signed affidavit from Petitioner’s authorized 

representative stating they never received a copy of the BOR results. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order 

holding Petitioner in default because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice giving 

rise to the appeal, i.e. BOR decision.1 The pleadings and accompanying documentation 

indicate that Petitioner is appealing the true cash, state equalized, and taxable values 

for Parcel No. 59-004-550-047-00 for the 2025 tax year. While Petitioner asserts to 

having protested to the BOR, Respondent’s answer, filed on October 16, 2025, 

indicates Respondent never received Petitioner’s protest to the BOR, and thus no BOR 

decision was made. Therefore, the Tribunal finds good cause to vacate the default 

order. 

 

Moreover, the Tribunal finds it has no authority over this parcel under MCL 205.735a(3), 

nor any authority over Petitioner’s appeal as a final decision of the BOR is a prerequisite 

for invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.2 Because Respondent never received 

Petitioner’s protest to the March BOR, Petitioner failed to complete the prerequisite step 

of appealing to the BOR and thus failed to invoke the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction 

over this proceeding. In Sixarp LLC v Byron Twp,3 the Michigan Supreme Court 

reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is 

statutory by nature. The Court stated: 

 

 

1 The order further stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

2 See MCL 205.731. 

3 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002924 

Page 2 of 3 

 

MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that 

governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” 

We therefore overrule Parkview4 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the 

protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere 

“procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and 

not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if 

necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived 

the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.5 

 

The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon in Sixarp is applicable in this 

case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction prerequisite that a residential 

valuation be appealed to the March BOR prior to a petition being filed with the Tribunal. 

MCL 205.735a(3) controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The Tribunal has 

no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.6 “[S]imply because the 

plaintiffs' underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and may even be meritorious, 

does not excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim within the applicable statutory 

period of limitation.”7 

 

The Tribunal notes that the answer in this case contends that Respondent did not 

receive Petitioner’s protest to the March BOR. This contention of improper notice, if 

actionable, would require a determination by an applicable authority that the purported 

error resulted in a due-process violation. As explained above, the Tribunal lacks any 

equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. Jurisdiction as a result 

of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory obligation, if there was 

any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as a matter of equity.8 

Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the September 16, 2025 Order Holding Petitioner in Default is 

VACATED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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

 

 

 

4 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 

5 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted). 

6 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 

7 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 

8 See Sixarp at 4, 8. The court held respectively that “the Court of Appeals remedied the violation by 

vesting

Page 3

MT

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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

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.

Users who file documents with the Michigan Tax Tribunal are advised that filed 

documents are public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tax 

Docket Lookup. Users who file documents are responsible for ensuring sensitive or 

personal identifying information is withheld or redacted. See TTR 209. If a user wishes 

to file a document for consideration by the Michigan Tax Tribunal and prevent its 

publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for Protective Order 

under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents covered by the 

Order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a Protective Order 

will be published.

The responsibility for excluding or redacting personal identifying information (PII) from 

all documents filed with or offered to the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and 

their attorneys. The Tribunal is not responsible for or required to review, redact, or 

screen documents at the time of filing for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A 

party, representative, or interested person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may 

request that the Tribunal redact PII contained in a previously-filed document by

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Page 2 of 6

submitting a Request for Redactions. The Request for Redactions form will be 

available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages of our website. 

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.

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: November 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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

S

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 

0CT 22 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON i. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

. 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002024-7T 

Pa 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

ML: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Andy 

K 

Ross 

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

County: 

PO Box 109 

Montcalm 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Lakeview 

Mi 

48884 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

989-291-3630 

E-mall Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send ali correspondence via emait): 

rossandyk@gmail.com 

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

First Name: 

M.L: 

Last Name: 

Firm Name (if any): 

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

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

E-malf Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via emall): 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

(} Yes 

[wv] No 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If not, list which parcels adjoin one another.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Petitioners petition was never received by the March Board of Review. Therefore no 

BOR decision was made. 

My land studies support my land values. 

Petitioner is using the sale price of their parcel to determine the value. Assessors can 

not legally use the sale price as the true cash value and the sale of this property was 

outside of our sales study window time frame. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Patitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [Hl] Yes 

[¥] No 

if yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [| March 

[| July 

a December 

if no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [wi] Yes 

[|] No 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. 

if the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? 0 Yes 

[mm] No 

if yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? J Yes 

[wi] No 

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

(} Yes 

4 No

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? 0 Yes 

[wi] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [I] March 

[I] July 

[I] December 

List the date the BOR denied Petitionar’s Poverty Exemption: 

IF PETITIONER 1S APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption at a BOR? [ml] Yes 

[mm] No 

if Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [] March 

[J uty 

[] pecember 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you belleve the classification should be: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

0 

Agricutural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

{check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information *use tre muitiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

Ctassification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

{(checkone) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Ulility 

(check one) 

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

25,100 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

25,100 

What do you believe [s the fair market value (also known as True Cash Vajue)? 

50,200 

Muitiply the True Cash Value by .6 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

25,100 

if you belleve the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

Page 4

Wigan Deparment of Treasury, 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

“This form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, Sec, 211.24 (¢) and Sec.211.34c, as amended, This is a model assessment notice to be used by the local assessor. 

FROM: ASSESSOR 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

CATO TWP 

PO BOX 109 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

59-004-550-047-00 

* LAKEVIEW M1 48850 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

6081 TERRY DR 

SIX LAKES, MI 48886 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

POR BRANDON 

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence": 

00% 

1870 E JOHN ST 

9% Exempt As "Qualified Agricultural Property: 

00% 

NEWAYGO Mi 49337 

% Exempt 

As "MBT Industrial Personal’: 

00% 

% Exempt As "MBT Commercial Personal”; 

00% 

Exempt As "Qualified Forest Property": 

[] Yes 

No 

Exempt As "Development Property": 

0 Yes 

[X] 

No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

L523 P1139 COMBINED PER B.O.R.-1993 792-289 047-00/1997 LOTS 47 & 48 LAKE FOREST SUBD 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS:

Page 5

STA

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 

DEPARMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Brandon Por, 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924 

Vv 

Township of Cato, 

Respondent. 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

AFFIDAVIT OF LAURA M. HALLAHAN 

Laura M. Hallahan, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 

1. 

Tam the attorney representing the Petitioner, Brandon Por. 

2. 

On March 3, 2025 I mailed to Cato Township Mr. Por’s Petition to Board of Review along 

with written authorization from Petitioner both of which are attached hereto s Exhibit A. 

3. 

Inever received a Board of Review decision. 

4. 

The above facts are based my personal knowledge. If sworn as a witness in this matter, 

I

Page 2

EXHIBIT A

Page 3

Michigan Department of Treasury

618 (Rev. 11-12)

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

Petition to Board of Review

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:

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type)

Petitioner's Name (If Other than Owner. Please Print or Type)

Property Identified (Parcel code required. Property address & legal description optional)

Protested Item

Assessed Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Classification

 

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT

Assessed Amount

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Year

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.)

Classification of property on this year's assessment roll

Classification should be (check one of the following):

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Timber Cutover

Developmental

Utility (Personal Property Only)

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.)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption 

denied)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption requested by owner (Enter 100 if full 

exemption requested)

4. REASON FOR PROTEST

State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or classification and/or qualified agricultural property exemption

CERTIFICATION

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

Signature

Date

Address

Phone Number

L-4035

www.michigan.gov/treasury

Qualified Agricultural 

Property Exemption

Township or City

County

Reset Form

Brandon Por

Cato Township

Montcalm

59-004-550-047-00 

6081 Terry Drive 





$25,100

$3,000

$25,100

2025

The 2025 assessed, state equalized and taxable values levied against the property exceed fifty (50%) of the 

property's fair market value. 

March 2, 2025

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202, Bloomfield Hills, MI

(248) 731-3089

Page 4

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY

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

Petition Number

Parcel Code

1. ASSESSED VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Assessed Value Changed From ______________________ to ____________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From ___________________ to ________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

3. CLASSIFICATION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Classification Changed From ______________________ to ____________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Exemption Request Denied

Exemption percent modified from _____________% to _____________%

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review

Board of Review

Page 5

AUTHORI

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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.i 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 16, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

i “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Page 2 of 6

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.ii 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 16, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

ii “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Page 4 of 6

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

Page 5

STATE OF

Page 6

MTT Docket No.

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

Brandon

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Por

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

6081 Terry Drive

City or Town

Six Lakes

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48886

Telephone Number

2487313090

Fax Number

E-mail Address

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

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

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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]

6081 Terry Drive

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Six Lakes

Michigan

48886

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Cato (MONTCALM)

County 

Montcalm

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

True Cash and Taxable Value

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer 

for the reasons that:

(a)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

(b)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes;

(c)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s 

property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and

(d)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025

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

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

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

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: 59-004-550-047-00

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:

25100

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

25100

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

3000 

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

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

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?

No

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

Page 4

STA

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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

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: September 16, 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 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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

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: September 16, 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

Brandon Por,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002924

Township Of Cato,

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: September 16, 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

Michigan Department of Treasury

618 (Rev. 11-12)

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

Petition to Board of Review

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:

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type)

Petitioner's Name (If Other than Owner. Please Print or Type)

Property Identified (Parcel code required. Property address & legal description optional)

Protested Item

Assessed Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Classification

 

1. PROTEST OF ASSESSMENT

Assessed Amount

Owner's Estimate of True Cash Value

Tentative Taxable Value

Year

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.)

Classification of property on this year's assessment roll

Classification should be (check one of the following):

Agricultural

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Timber Cutover

Developmental

Utility (Personal Property Only)

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.)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor (Enter 0 if exemption 

denied)

Percent qualified agricultural exemption requested by owner (Enter 100 if full 

exemption requested)

4. REASON FOR PROTEST

State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable value and/or classification and/or qualified agricultural property exemption

CERTIFICATION

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

Signature

Date

Address

Phone Number

L-4035

www.michigan.gov/treasury

Qualified Agricultural 

Property Exemption

Township or City

County

Reset Form

Brandon Por

Cato Township

Montcalm

59-004-550-047-00 

6081 Terry Drive 





$25,100

$3,000

$25,100

2025

The 2025 assessed, state equalized and taxable values levied against the property exceed fifty (50%) of the 

property's fair market value. 

March 2, 2025

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202, Bloomfield Hills, MI

(248) 731-3089

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.

Petition Number

Parcel Code

1. ASSESSED VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Assessed Value Changed From ______________________ to ____________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

2. TENTATIVE TAXABLE VALUE

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Tentative Taxable Value Changed From ___________________ to ________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

3. CLASSIFICATION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Denied

Classification Changed From ______________________ to ____________________________

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

4. QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below.

Exemption Request Denied

Exemption percent modified from _____________% to _____________%

Record of vote - Board or three member committee of board

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chairperson:

Member:

Member:

Reason for board action

Date of Final adjournment of Board of Review

Board of Review Secretary Signature

Date

5. ADJOURNMENT

Form 618, Page 2

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

Initials

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing a petition with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal at P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, 

Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be appealed by May 31. Agricultural Real, Residential Real, Timber-Cutover Real and 

Agricultural Personal Property may be appealed by July 31. The petition must be filed on a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding

Page 3

AUTHO

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

Brandon

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Por

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

6081 Terry Drive

City or Town

Six Lakes

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48886

Telephone Number

2487313090

Fax Number

E-mail Address

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

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

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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]

6081 Terry Drive

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Six Lakes

Michigan

48886

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Cato (MONTCALM)

County 

Montcalm

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

True Cash and Taxable Value

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer 

for the reasons that:

(a)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

(b)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes;

(c)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s 

property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and

(d)

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025

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

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

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

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: 59-004-550-047-00

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:

25100

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

25100

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

3000 

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

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

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?

No

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

Page 4

STA

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.