Record Finder / 26-002885-TT
Michigan
Brian Berlinger Petitioner V Township Of Clay Respondent
- Petitioner
- Brian Berlinger
- Respondent
- Township Of Clay
Case overview
- Docket number
- 26-002885-TT
- Status
- Default Petitioner
- CaseType
- SC Property
- Division
- Small Claims Division
- County
- Saint Clair
- Judge
- No judge assigned
Docket history
| Line # | Subject | Filer | Line Ref | Enter Date/Post Mark | Fee | Related Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Order of Default of Petitioner | Not recorded | Not recorded | 09/25/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 3 | Petition has been verified | PET | 1 | 09/25/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 2 | Notice of Docket Number SC | Not recorded | Not recorded | 09/25/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 1 | A petition was received. | PET | Not recorded | 07/29/2026 | $0.00 | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
Documents
SC_Order_of_Default_of_Petition.2026-09-25_06-28-20.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Brian Berlinger, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002885 Township Of Clay, 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.1 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm Entered: September 25, 2026 1 “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. 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). 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
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-002885 Page 2 of 2 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 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Brian Berlinger, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002885 Township Of Clay, 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.2 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm Entered: September 25, 2026 2 “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. 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). 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
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 26-002885 Page 2 of 2 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.
Exhibit A Detailed Reason for Appeal.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
Exhibit A: Detailed reason for appeal: The petitioners purchased their home in July 2025 for $530,000. We are appealing the 2026 assessed and taxable values of $327,200 established by the Clay Township Michigan Board of Review, which reflect an unreasonable assumed true cash value of $654,400. Petitioners have supported their position with an independent appraisal and significant data and documents. The Township’s assessment is based on incorrect data and grossly inaccurate market assumptions. In July of 2025, the petitioners paid $530,000 in an arms-length transaction that fairly represented the true cash value of the home. If the SEV was adjusted to 50% of the true fair market value, the uncapped taxable value of $265,000 would have been a substantial increase over the prior owner’s taxable value of $229,500. The local assessor, however, increased it to $320,800, representing a 21% increase over the true cash value of the home. (See Exhibit B). In March 2026, the petitioners’ realtor, acting on petitioners’ behalf, submitted form L-4035 with a comprehensive list of comparable homes from April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2025 to the Clay Township Board of review. Her analysis recommended a true cash value of $492,200 with a 50% taxable value of $246,000 (See Exhibit C). The analysis was thorough and professional. The analysis used homes of similar square footage which also included some two- story homes. A member of the Board of Review argued that only ranch homes should’ve been used and refused to consider the recommendation. The same day, the petitioner’s agent provided the Board with a list of ranch homes that clearly established the Township’s valuation was improperly inflated. (See Exhibit D). The local assessor provided its own list of comparables (See Exhibit E), but none of them substantiated a $641,600 market value for the property. Despite this clear evidence, the Township not only did not reduce the assessment, it instead, sent the petitioners an even higher assessment of $327,200 (See Exhibit F), indicating that the covered boat hoist was not included in the property card. However, the property card information sent from the township also included a picture of the covered boat hoist taken in 2003, some 23 years ago. The Township’s assessed true cash value of $654,400 is a 23.5% increase in value in just six (6) months from the petitioners’ purchase of the home. Also attached is a trend analysis of the property SEV values from 2017 to 2026 with percentage increases and purchase prices (See Exhibit G). Independent Appraisal: In July 2026, the petitioners hired an independent certified appraisal company, (Schnoor Real Estate Services LLC), to complete an appraisal and comprehensive neighborhood market Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]
Page 2
analysis. Schnoor appraised the True Cash Market value of the home at $550,000. A copy of the appraisal is attached (see Exhibit H). The Schnoor appraiser came to the house and personally measured the true square footage of the home and found it to be 1,984 sq ft, instead of the township’s property card record of 2,124. The appraiser inspected all of the features of the home as well as the detrimental deferred maintenance issues. The independent appraiser’s true cash market value is much closer to our purchase price than the excessive taxable value from the township. At 50% of the Schnoor appraiser’s True Cash Value, the Taxable Value and SEV would be $275,000. Detailed home information provided to Board of Review in March: In addition to the market analysis provided to the Board of Review, the petitioners’ agent also helped us submit a form L-4035 to show valuation discrepancies on the property. The square footage of a home and the lot are not the only items that affect market value. (See Exhibit I). The townships valuation fails to account for deferred maintenance present at the time of uncapping; the roof was 22 years old, the boiler 22 years old, air-conditioner 22 years old, all at or exceeding useful life. The petitioners have already installed a new roof ($25,400 in 2026). The cement driveway is cracked and broken. The home, originally built in 1960, has significant brick spalling around the perimeter. In addition, the crawl space has a wood structural beam versus steel. The layout has two bedrooms, two baths with a den versus 3 bedrooms like most of the comparables. Home values in this canal subdivision, and any waterways, are also affected by the proximity or distance from the river/lake. The subject home’s location is over a mile away from the river/lake entrance. This distance requires a commute time of 45 minutes just to travel at no-wake speed to and from the St. Clair River’s North Channel. In contrast, some homes on other streets, such as Flamingo, Riverside, Parklane, etc. have just a few minutes commute time. For this reason, homes on those streets with easy access to the river are more highly desired and therefore their sale prices are impacted. The Board of Review refused to reduce the assessed value for any issues our petition addressed. Conclusion: We respectfully request that the Tribunal correct the township’s unsupported Taxable Value of $327,400 and revise the State Equalized Value and Taxable Value to $275,000, reflecting a lawful 50% of the property’s actual True Cash Value developed by the certified independent appraiser (Schnoor Real Estate Services, LLC). Brian & Denise Berlinger Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]
Page 3
Exhibits: Exhibit A - This letter detailing the reason for the appeal Exhibit B – Letter from the township on Tax Year 2016 – Assessment Exhibit C – Form L-4035 Market Value Analysis taken to Board of Review Exhibit D – Market Value Analysis of “Ranches Only” sent to township Exhibit E – List of comparables sent from township Exhibit F – Board of Review Decision Exhibit G – Trend of SEV Values from 2017 – 2026 Exhibit H – Independent Schnoor Real
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.
scpetition_valuation.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. Petitioner’s Contact Information: Filer Type: Local Unit of Government: Individual First Name M.I. Last Name Brian Berlinger Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 7213 Cardinal City or Town State ZIP Code Clay Michigan 48001 Telephone Number 317-385-0546 E-mail Address bdberlin@comcast.net Subject Property Information: How many parcels are you appealing? If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 1 *If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel N/A Property Address (No., Street) 7213 Cardinal City or Town County State ZIP Code Clay Twp Saint Clair Michigan 48001 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Clay (SAINT CLAIR) Check which of the following you are appealing: (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Values Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal: 1 of 3
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR The subject property is assessed in-excess of 50% of its True Cash Value. Petitioner’s appeal the 2026 Tax Year, True Cash, Assessed, and Taxable Values for 7213 Cardinal following a July 2025 ownership uncapping. The Board of Review’s implied market value of $654,400 is excessively overstated compared to true cash market value indicated in the arm’s length transaction purchase price of $530,000. As detailed in the attached statement (Exhibit A), and an independent certified appraisal (Schnoor Real Estate Services, LLC), (Exhibit H). The petitioners request the 2026 True Cash Value be set to $550,000, (supported by appraisal), reducing the assessed/taxable value SEV to $275,000. Please refer to the attached (Exhibit A) for a full statement of reasons, appraisal information, and other supporting evidence. Jurisdictional Issues: Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes If Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: March If No, please check the applicable reason(s): Year(s) Under Appeal: 2025 and 2026 Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal: Parcel Number: 74-14-199-0007-000 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Residential (check one) Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review: 327200 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 327200 What do you believe is the fair market value? 550000 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 275000 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 275000 2 of 3
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Petitioner’s Signature: /s/ Brian Berlinger Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature: /s/ Fee Information: If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for the filing of this appeal. The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed. Property tax appeal: Residential** Non-Residential SEV or TV in contention* Filing fee*** Filing Fee** $100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? Yes 3 of 3
These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.
SC_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2026-09-25_06-27-00.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Brian Berlinger, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002885 Township Of Clay, 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 25, 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 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
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Brian Berlinger, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002885 Township Of Clay, 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 25, 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 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
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.
Exhibit A Detailed Reason for Appeal.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
Exhibit A: Detailed reason for appeal: The petitioners purchased their home in July 2025 for $530,000. We are appealing the 2026 assessed and taxable values of $327,200 established by the Clay Township Michigan Board of Review, which reflect an unreasonable assumed true cash value of $654,400. Petitioners have supported their position with an independent appraisal and significant data and documents. The Township’s assessment is based on incorrect data and grossly inaccurate market assumptions. In July of 2025, the petitioners paid $530,000 in an arms-length transaction that fairly represented the true cash value of the home. If the SEV was adjusted to 50% of the true fair market value, the uncapped taxable value of $265,000 would have been a substantial increase over the prior owner’s taxable value of $229,500. The local assessor, however, increased it to $320,800, representing a 21% increase over the true cash value of the home. (See Exhibit B). In March 2026, the petitioners’ realtor, acting on petitioners’ behalf, submitted form L-4035 with a comprehensive list of comparable homes from April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2025 to the Clay Township Board of review. Her analysis recommended a true cash value of $492,200 with a 50% taxable value of $246,000 (See Exhibit C). The analysis was thorough and professional. The analysis used homes of similar square footage which also included some two- story homes. A member of the Board of Review argued that only ranch homes should’ve been used and refused to consider the recommendation. The same day, the petitioner’s agent provided the Board with a list of ranch homes that clearly established the Township’s valuation was improperly inflated. (See Exhibit D). The local assessor provided its own list of comparables (See Exhibit E), but none of them substantiated a $641,600 market value for the property. Despite this clear evidence, the Township not only did not reduce the assessment, it instead, sent the petitioners an even higher assessment of $327,200 (See Exhibit F), indicating that the covered boat hoist was not included in the property card. However, the property card information sent from the township also included a picture of the covered boat hoist taken in 2003, some 23 years ago. The Township’s assessed true cash value of $654,400 is a 23.5% increase in value in just six (6) months from the petitioners’ purchase of the home. Also attached is a trend analysis of the property SEV values from 2017 to 2026 with percentage increases and purchase prices (See Exhibit G). Independent Appraisal: In July 2026, the petitioners hired an independent certified appraisal company, (Schnoor Real Estate Services LLC), to complete an appraisal and comprehensive neighborhood market Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]
Page 2
analysis. Schnoor appraised the True Cash Market value of the home at $550,000. A copy of the appraisal is attached (see Exhibit H). The Schnoor appraiser came to the house and personally measured the true square footage of the home and found it to be 1,984 sq ft, instead of the township’s property card record of 2,124. The appraiser inspected all of the features of the home as well as the detrimental deferred maintenance issues. The independent appraiser’s true cash market value is much closer to our purchase price than the excessive taxable value from the township. At 50% of the Schnoor appraiser’s True Cash Value, the Taxable Value and SEV would be $275,000. Detailed home information provided to Board of Review in March: In addition to the market analysis provided to the Board of Review, the petitioners’ agent also helped us submit a form L-4035 to show valuation discrepancies on the property. The square footage of a home and the lot are not the only items that affect market value. (See Exhibit I). The townships valuation fails to account for deferred maintenance present at the time of uncapping; the roof was 22 years old, the boiler 22 years old, air-conditioner 22 years old, all at or exceeding useful life. The petitioners have already installed a new roof ($25,400 in 2026). The cement driveway is cracked and broken. The home, originally built in 1960, has significant brick spalling around the perimeter. In addition, the crawl space has a wood structural beam versus steel. The layout has two bedrooms, two baths with a den versus 3 bedrooms like most of the comparables. Home values in this canal subdivision, and any waterways, are also affected by the proximity or distance from the river/lake. The subject home’s location is over a mile away from the river/lake entrance. This distance requires a commute time of 45 minutes just to travel at no-wake speed to and from the St. Clair River’s North Channel. In contrast, some homes on other streets, such as Flamingo, Riverside, Parklane, etc. have just a few minutes commute time. For this reason, homes on those streets with easy access to the river are more highly desired and therefore their sale prices are impacted. The Board of Review refused to reduce the assessed value for any issues our petition addressed. Conclusion: We respectfully request that the Tribunal correct the township’s unsupported Taxable Value of $327,400 and revise the State Equalized Value and Taxable Value to $275,000, reflecting a lawful 50% of the property’s actual True Cash Value developed by the certified independent appraiser (Schnoor Real Estate Services, LLC). Brian & Denise Berlinger Berlinger/New Exhibit A paragraph [redline][07282026]
Page 3
Exhibits: Exhibit A - This letter detailing the reason for the appeal Exhibit B – Letter from the township on Tax Year 2016 – Assessment Exhibit C – Form L-4035 Market Value Analysis taken to Board of Review Exhibit D – Market Value Analysis of “Ranches Only” sent to township Exhibit E – List of comparables sent from township Exhibit F – Board of Review Decision Exhibit G – Trend of SEV Values from 2017 – 2026 Exhibit H – Independent Schnoor Real
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.
scpetition_valuation.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. Petitioner’s Contact Information: Filer Type: Local Unit of Government: Individual First Name M.I. Last Name Brian Berlinger Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 7213 Cardinal City or Town State ZIP Code Clay Michigan 48001 Telephone Number 317-385-0546 E-mail Address bdberlin@comcast.net Subject Property Information: How many parcels are you appealing? If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 1 *If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel N/A Property Address (No., Street) 7213 Cardinal City or Town County State ZIP Code Clay Twp Saint Clair Michigan 48001 Taxing Authority (City or Township) Township Of Clay (SAINT CLAIR) Check which of the following you are appealing: (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Values Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal: 1 of 3
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR The subject property is assessed in-excess of 50% of its True Cash Value. Petitioner’s appeal the 2026 Tax Year, True Cash, Assessed, and Taxable Values for 7213 Cardinal following a July 2025 ownership uncapping. The Board of Review’s implied market value of $654,400 is excessively overstated compared to true cash market value indicated in the arm’s length transaction purchase price of $530,000. As detailed in the attached statement (Exhibit A), and an independent certified appraisal (Schnoor Real Estate Services, LLC), (Exhibit H). The petitioners request the 2026 True Cash Value be set to $550,000, (supported by appraisal), reducing the assessed/taxable value SEV to $275,000. Please refer to the attached (Exhibit A) for a full statement of reasons, appraisal information, and other supporting evidence. Jurisdictional Issues: Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes If Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: March If No, please check the applicable reason(s): Year(s) Under Appeal: 2025 and 2026 Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal: Parcel Number: 74-14-199-0007-000 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Residential (check one) Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review: 327200 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 327200 What do you believe is the fair market value? 550000 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 275000 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 275000 2 of 3
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Petitioner’s Signature: /s/ Brian Berlinger Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature: /s/ Fee Information: If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for the filing of this appeal. The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed. Property tax appeal: Residential** Non-Residential SEV or TV in contention* Filing fee*** Filing Fee** $100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? Yes 3 of 3
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.