Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent

Page 1

Court of Appeals, State of Michigan 

ORDER 

 

 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC V CITY OF DETROIT 

Docket No. 

377827 

LC No. 

25-002384 

 

 

Stephen L. Borrello, Chief Judge Pro Tem, acting under MCR 7.203(F)(1), orders: 

The claim of appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction because it was not timely filed. 

MCR 7.204(A). The claim of appeal was not filed within 21 days after entry of the final order appealed 

from and the motion for postjudgment relief was not filed within the initial 21-day appeal period or within 

further time allowed by the trial court. MCR 7.204(A)(1). Dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of 

a late appeal under MCR 7.205(A)(4), provided such a filing meets all requirements under the court rules 

and is not time-barred. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 22, 2025

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 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

0CT 21 2025 

COURT OF APPEALS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT Il LLC, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

\ 

Court of Appeals Case # 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent — Appellee. 

/ 

Aaron Fales (P72864) 

Mary Beth Cobbs (P40080) 

Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, PC 

Kevin Richard (P43417) 

Attorneys for Petitoner-Appellant 

City of Detroit Law Department 

330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350 

Attorneys for Respondent-Appellee 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

248-767-9840 

2 Woodward Ave., Suite 500 

aaron@afaleslow.com 

Detroit, MI 48226 

313-237-3061 

cobbm@detroitmi.gov 

richkc@detroitmi.gov 

Notice of Filing Claim of Appeal 

TO: 

Chief Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

611 W. Ottawa 

Lansing, Ml 48933 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 16, 2025, the attached Claim od Appeal 

was filed electronically with the Court of Appeals.

Page 2

JIS Code; COA 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 

COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

CLAIM OF APPEAL 

CASE NO. 

CIRCUIT 

michigan Tax Tribunal 

DISTRICT 

25-002384 

PROBATE 

Court address 

Court telephone no. 

Plaintiff's/Petitioner’s name(s) and address(es) 

[<] Appeliant 

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC 

ClAppeliee 

Defendant’s/Respondent’s name(s) and address(es) 

[Appellant 

City of Detroit 

[“Iappeliee 

Plaintiff's attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no. 

Aaron Fales (P72864) 

Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C. 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350, Birmingham, MI 48009 

248-767-9840 

Defendant's attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no. 

Mary Beth Cobbs (P40080}, Kevin Richard (P43417) 

City of Detroit Law Dept., CAYMC 

2 Woodward, Ste. 500, Detroit, MI 48226 

313-237-3061 

In the matter of 

Other interested party(ies) of probate matter 

4. Broadway Detroit Development II LLC 

Name 

September 29, 2025 

in the Michigan Tax Tribunal 

claims an appeal from a final judgment or final order entered on 

Court of the State of Michigan, 

Date 

Court name and number or county 

py 

[districtjudge 

 [dcircuitjudge 

[probate judge 

[district court magistrate 

Presiding Judge Jason C. Grinnell 

. 

Name of judge or district court magistrate 

Bar no. 

.Bondonappealis 

[lfiled. 

[lattached. 

waived. 

[not required. 

wn 

. 

a. The transcript has been ordered. 

[b. The transcript has been filed. 

¢. No record was made.

Page 3

Claim of Appeal 

(9/23) 

aim 

of 

Case No, 25-002384 

[]14. THIS CASE INVOLVES 

[Ja. 

ACONTEST AS TO THE CUSTODY OF A MINOR CHILD. 

1b. AN ADULT OR MINOR GUARDIANSHIP UNDER THE ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE OR 

UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE. 

Ic. AN INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT CASE UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE. 

d. 

ARULING THAT A PROVISION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, A MICHIGAN STATUTE, 

A RULE OR 

REGULATION INCLUDED IN THE MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, OR ANY OTHER ACTION OF THE 

LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT IS INVALID. 

[J e. AN ADOPTION ORDER UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE PROBATE CODE. 

[CJf. 

AFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ISSUE. 

10/16/2025 

/s/ Aaron Fales 

Date 

Appellant/Attorney signature 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| certify that copies of this claim of appeal and bond (if required) were served on 

Mary Beth Cobbs 

on 10/16/2025 

by 

[personal service. 

[first-class mail. 

Name 

Date 

Kevin Richard 

on 10/16/2025 

by 

[personalservice. 

[first-class mail. 

Name 

Date 

on 

by 

[personalservice. 

[first-class mail. 

Name 

Date 

/s/ Aaron Fales 

Date 

Signature

Page 4

Case Name: 

Jurisdiction 

0) 

hd 

c 

0 

= 

o 

= 

=; 

oT 

o 

(14 

Oo) 

Michigan Court of Appeals 

Lower Court/Tribunal: Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Jurisdictional Checklist 

95.002384 

Lower Court Case No.: 

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC v. City of Detroit 

INSTRUCTIONS: For a civil claim of appeal, please complete the following statements. 

[SELECT ONE] An appeal of right may be filed because the order is: 

MCR 7.203(A) 

] 

A final order of the circuit court under MCR 7.202(6). Specify subsection: 

] 

A probate court order that falls within MCR 5.801(A). Specify subsection: 

MI Const. art 6, sec 28; MCL 205.753(1); MCR 7.203(A)(2) 

Appealable as of right by law or court rule. Specify law or rule: 

[SELECT ONE] This claim of appeal is timely because it is being filed: 

MCR 7.204(A) 

Within 21 days from entry of the order appealed from (as identified above). 

1] 

Within 21 days of an order deciding a motion for new trial, rehearing, reconsideration, or other relief from 

the order appealed, and the postjudgment motion was filed within 21 days of the order appealed from. 

[] 

other: 

INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete the

Page 5

Order

Page 6

LETS

Page 7

M

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

Page 1

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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that Respondent has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

Entered: October 9, 2025

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that Respondent has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

Entered: October 9, 2025

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that Respondent has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

Entered: October 9, 2025

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

LAW DEPARTMENT 

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

Phone 313¢224.4550 

4 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 

Fax 

3132245505 

DETROIT 

Detroit, Michigan 48226-3437 

www.detroitmi.gov 

RECEIVED 

September 29, 2025 

oct 082025 

Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs 

; 

BUNAL 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

MICHIGAN TAX Le 

PO Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Dear Sir/Madam, 

Enclosed please find the Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion for 

Reconsideration. 

Thank you for your attention in this regard. Should you have any questions or concerns, 

please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

Isang Beth (obs 

Mary Beth Cobbs 

Assistant Corporation Counsel 

cobbm(@detroitmi.gov 

cc: Aaron Fales, Esq. 

Enclosures

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384- 

Respondent. 

RESPONDENT, CITY OF DETROIT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Respondent, through the undersigned counsel, in response to Petitioner’s 

Motion for 

Reconsideration states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits that this appeal stems from a March Board of Review determination, 

however as to the date that the determination from the Respondent’s Board of Review 

was received by the Petitioner is not clearly set forth 

in this Motion for Reconsideration. 

Respondent admits that the MTT summarily dismissed this docketed petition, but denies 

that the dismissal was erroneous.

Page 3

The appeal speaks for itself. 

Respondent admits that the Order dismissing this appeal was entered on August 20, 

2025. 

I. 

The Tribunal’s 8/20/2025 Order is NOT an 

Error of Law and the 

Determination 

to Dismiss the Petition Should not be Reversed 

Respondent takes the position that the Tribunal properly applied MCL 205.735a(6) which 

required the filing of the petition no later than May 31,2025. 

Respondent respectfully states that the timing requirements of MCL 205.735a(6) are 

jurisdictional. Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v Twp. of Flint, 253. Mich App 538,543-544, 

656 NW2d 215 (2002). 

Respondent states that no palpable error should be attributed to the ruling of the tribunal 

in finding that the filing of the petition was untimely. The Tribunal lacks equitable powers 

and cannot waive the statutory requirements of MCL 205.735a, Electronic Data Sys 

Corp. 253 Mich App at 547-548. 

II. 

No Palpable Error Exists and Therefore the Motion must be Denied. 

Respondent states that no palpable error should be attributed to the ruling of the Tribunal 

in finding that the petition was filed untimely. 

“ “Palpable error is defined as [e]asily 

perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, manifest.” ” Estate 

of Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417,426; 805 NW2d 453 (2011), quoting Stomp v

Page 4

111. Conclusion 

11. WHEREFORE 

, Respondent City of Detroit respectfully requests that this Tribunal deny 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Deny Petitoner’s request 

to reinstate the 

Petition. 

Dated: September 29, 2025 

Respectfully Submitted. 

City of Detroit Law Department 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By: Tory Yolo (les 

Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 237-3075 

cobbm@detroitmi.gov

Page 5

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT, LLC 

Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 - 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

On September 29, 2025, 

1 mailed by first class mail a copy of Respondent’s Response to 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 

: 

Aaron Fales, Esq. 

Law Offices of Aaron Fales 

330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

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

belief.

Page 6

MEERRQIBRERMUHRE80 

LAW DEPARTMENT 

Coleman A. Yi 

= 

_ 

) 

2 Woodward LER 

Mm TAL 

Detroit, Michigan 48226-3437 

DETROIT 

30135 T9504 

Saivis AND 

Mary Beth Cobbs 

8068 

& 

w

Co 

8 Y 

s

Departmerit of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs 

2 

h 

3 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

ca =~ 

n

PO Box 30232 

2 0 

p

Lansing, MI 48909 

2 

8 

gta ost ooops 

slosh]

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 

SEP 252025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Traninfo:4606h 

260582211 

09/24/25 

Chk: 

1576 

Ants $50.00 

Respondent. 

ID: 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M FALES FC 

/ 

AARON M. FALES (P72864) 

Kevin Richard (P43417) 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M FALES PC 

Coleman A. Young Bldg. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2 Woodward Ave., Suite 500 

1080 Canyon Creek Drive 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Rochester Hills, MI 48307 

313-237-3061 

(248) 767-9840 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner, by and through its counsel, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., hereby serves 

its Motion for Reconsideration, and states as follows: 

BACKGROUND 

1. 

This case involves a very late issued 2025 March Board of Review determination 

erroneously uncapping Petitoner’s property 

that was transferred between related 

entities under common control. 

Petitioner timely appealed the final determination

Page 2

. 

Respondent, 

City 

of Detroit, 

entered 

a March 

Board 

of Review 

(“MBOR”) 

Determination on May 17, 2025 ( EXHIBIT A — MBOR Notice) and subsequently 

mailed said determination to Petitioner. 

. 

Petitioner received the determination on June 7, 2025, after the normal May 31, 2025 

filing deadline (EXHIBIT B — Email Confirming receipt of Notice (6/7/25)). 

. 

Five (5) days after actually receiving the Notice, Petitioner’s Counsel appealed the 

final decision of Respondent’s MBOR on 6/12/25 (EXHIBIT C — Petition), pointing 

out the notice was issued on 5/17/25 (27 days prior) to the Tribunal. 

. 

On August 20" 

the Tribunal 

entered 

an Order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition 

(EXHIBIT D — 8/20/25 Order). 

The Tribunal’s 8/20/25 Order is an Error of Law and Must be Reversed. 

The Tribunal errored in its application of MCL 205.735a(6) (EXHIBIT E — Statute) 

by focusing solely on the May 31 deadline language, however, the May 31° deadline 

is not applicable in this matter as Petitioner is invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction 

pursuant the other prong of MCL 205.735a(6) which states: 

“In all other matters, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is invoked by a party in 

interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition within 35 days after the final 

decision, ruling, or determination.” 

. 

In this matter the “final decision, ruling, or determination” of the MBOR was issued 

on 5/17/25 (27 days prior to appeal) and actually received by Petitioner on 6/7/25 (5

Page 3

IL 

was, and is, proper and this Motion for Reconsideration must be granted to correct 

this error in law. 

Petitioner alleged and invoked jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a(6) in section 5 of its 

Petition and the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter because it was filed within 

35 days of receipt of the final decision giving rise to this appeal and therefore 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration must be granted as a matter of Law. 

A Palpable Error Exists Therefore This Motion Must be Granted 

10. 

IIL. 

A palpable error is an error from which “a different disposition would result from a 

correction of the error.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426; 805 NW2d 453 

(2011). 

Here, 

a different disposition would result from 

correcting 

this 

error; 

Petitioner would have a right to expeditious and properly correct the error by granting 

this motion for reconsideration. Therefore, there is a palpable error because dismissal 

is an error of law and not proper in this instance. Petitioner invoked the timely 

jurisdiction of the Tribunal and should be permitted to correct this error at the 

Tribunal. 

Petitioner would not be able to timely correct the erroneous uncapping 

unless this Motion is granted and therefore this dismissal results in a palpable error as 

well as an error in law. 

The error of law result in a palpable error as well and therefore Petitioner’s Motion 

for reconsideration should also be granted. 

Conclusions

Page 4

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully asks this Tribunal to 

1) enter an Order granting 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, 

2) reinstate this case 

as active on the Tribunal’s 

docketing system, and 3) award any other costs or relief it deems necessary to Petitioner in this 

matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICES OF AARON M. FALES 

Attorneys for Petition 

By: 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 767-9840 

Dated: September 5, 2025

Page 5

EXHIBIT A

Page 6

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 105 

Detroit, Michigan

Page 7

STATE

Page 8

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

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 

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On September 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal 

reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on August 20, 2025. In the 

motion, Petitioner states that the appeal was within 35 days of Respondent’s March 

Board of Review decision, which was the notice giving rise to the appeal because of the 

Board’s uncapping action. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that it “may order a 

rehearing or reconsideration of any decision or order upon its own initiative or motion 

filed within 21 days after the entry of the decision or order sought to be reheard or 

reconsidered.”1 Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was filed beyond this 21-day 

deadline, and as a result, is not properly pending before the Tribunal.2 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

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

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be 

filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: September 29, 2025 

 

By _______________________________ 

bw 

 

 

 

1 TTR 261(1). 

2 See also Pars Ice Cream Co, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of 

Appeals, issued August 14, 2012 (Docket No. 305148).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

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.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

SEP 252025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket No. 25-002384 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Traninfo:4606h 

260582211 

09/24/25 

Chk: 

1576 

Ants $50.00 

Respondent. 

ID: 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M FALES FC 

/ 

AARON M. FALES (P72864) 

Kevin Richard (P43417) 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M FALES PC 

Coleman A. Young Bldg. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2 Woodward Ave., Suite 500 

1080 Canyon Creek Drive 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Rochester Hills, MI 48307 

313-237-3061 

(248) 767-9840 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner, by and through its counsel, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., hereby serves 

its Motion for Reconsideration, and states as follows: 

BACKGROUND 

1. 

This case involves a very late issued 2025 March Board of Review determination 

erroneously uncapping Petitoner’s property 

that was transferred between related 

entities under common control. 

Petitioner timely appealed the final determination

Page 2

. 

Respondent, 

City 

of Detroit, 

entered 

a March 

Board 

of Review 

(“MBOR”) 

Determination on May 17, 2025 ( EXHIBIT A — MBOR Notice) and subsequently 

mailed said determination to Petitioner. 

. 

Petitioner received the determination on June 7, 2025, after the normal May 31, 2025 

filing deadline (EXHIBIT B — Email Confirming receipt of Notice (6/7/25)). 

. 

Five (5) days after actually receiving the Notice, Petitioner’s Counsel appealed the 

final decision of Respondent’s MBOR on 6/12/25 (EXHIBIT C — Petition), pointing 

out the notice was issued on 5/17/25 (27 days prior) to the Tribunal. 

. 

On August 20" 

the Tribunal 

entered 

an Order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition 

(EXHIBIT D — 8/20/25 Order). 

The Tribunal’s 8/20/25 Order is an Error of Law and Must be Reversed. 

The Tribunal errored in its application of MCL 205.735a(6) (EXHIBIT E — Statute) 

by focusing solely on the May 31 deadline language, however, the May 31° deadline 

is not applicable in this matter as Petitioner is invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction 

pursuant the other prong of MCL 205.735a(6) which states: 

“In all other matters, the jurisdiction of the tribunal is invoked by a party in 

interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition within 35 days after the final 

decision, ruling, or determination.” 

. 

In this matter the “final decision, ruling, or determination” of the MBOR was issued 

on 5/17/25 (27 days prior to appeal) and actually received by Petitioner on 6/7/25 (5

Page 3

IL 

was, and is, proper and this Motion for Reconsideration must be granted to correct 

this error in law. 

Petitioner alleged and invoked jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a(6) in section 5 of its 

Petition and the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this matter because it was filed within 

35 days of receipt of the final decision giving rise to this appeal and therefore 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration must be granted as a matter of Law. 

A Palpable Error Exists Therefore This Motion Must be Granted 

10. 

IIL. 

A palpable error is an error from which “a different disposition would result from a 

correction of the error.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426; 805 NW2d 453 

(2011). 

Here, 

a different disposition would result from 

correcting 

this 

error; 

Petitioner would have a right to expeditious and properly correct the error by granting 

this motion for reconsideration. Therefore, there is a palpable error because dismissal 

is an error of law and not proper in this instance. Petitioner invoked the timely 

jurisdiction of the Tribunal and should be permitted to correct this error at the 

Tribunal. 

Petitioner would not be able to timely correct the erroneous uncapping 

unless this Motion is granted and therefore this dismissal results in a palpable error as 

well as an error in law. 

The error of law result in a palpable error as well and therefore Petitioner’s Motion 

for reconsideration should also be granted. 

Conclusions

Page 4

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully asks this Tribunal to 

1) enter an Order granting 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, 

2) reinstate this case 

as active on the Tribunal’s 

docketing system, and 3) award any other costs or relief it deems necessary to Petitioner in this 

matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

LAW OFFICES OF AARON M. FALES 

Attorneys for Petition 

By: 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 767-9840 

Dated: September 5, 2025

Page 5

EXHIBIT A

Page 6

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 105 

Detroit, Michigan

Page 7

STATE

Page 8

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

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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002384

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

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

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002384

Page 2 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 20, 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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002384

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

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

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans

Page 4

M

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

/

 

 

 

MTT Docket #25- 

Parcel No. 01004005. 

 

 

 

PETITION 

 

 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC (“Petitioner”), through its 

attorneys, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: 

 

1. 

Petitioner's principal office address is 1300 Broadway, Suite 600, 

Detroit, MI 48226. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes 

on real property tax parcel nos. 01004005. ("Petitioner's Property"), at 1322 

Broadway, Detroit, MI, 48226. 

 

2. 

Respondent, City of Detroit assesses and collects property taxes on 

Petitioner's Property. 

 

3. 

 In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Parcel # 01004005. to be $184,490 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $411,700 

resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the tenative 

equalization factor.

Page 2

4. 

At the March Board of Review, Respondent erroneosly uncapped 

Petitioner’s Taxable Value and Adjusted it up to $411,700. 

 

5. 

Th Notice giving rise to this change was dated May 17, 2025 and is 

attached hereto. This Notice is what Petiiton is timely and lawfully appealing 

from. 

 

6. 

Petitioner's Property is classified as Commercial Real Property. 

Petitioner's Property is commercial property. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was designed to be used as a commercial purposes. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, 

(c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that 

there is a dispute relative to an erroneous uncapping. 

 

7. 

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable 

value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the 

taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible 

under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

Page 3

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state 

equalized value, 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 assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an 

Order reducing and recapping the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel # 

01004005. from $411,700 to $184,490, and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner 

the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: June 12, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

By: _________________________ 

 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

 330 Hamilton Row, Ste 350 

 Birmingham, MI 48009 

 (248) 767-9840

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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002384

City of Detroit, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: __Tribunal Clerk________

Entered: August 15, 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

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002384

City of Detroit, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: __Tribunal Clerk________

Entered: August 15, 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

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 105 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

Phone: (313) 628-0722 

Fax: (313) 224-4576 

www.detroitmi.gov 

Board of Review 

DETROIT 

05/17/2025 

BROADWAY DETROITDEVEL II, LLC 

1300 BROADWAY STE 600 

DETROIT MI 48236 

RE: 

2025 

MARCH BOARD OF REVIEW PETITION NUMBER: 

M-501258 

The March Board of Review has considered the appeal on the 2025 assessment for the below described property 

and concluded that: 

FINDING OF FACTS: 

1. 

Parcel Number: 

01004005. 

2. 

Property Address: 

1322 BROADWAY 

3. 

District: 

6 

4. 

Property Classification: 

201 

(COMMERCIAL-IMPROVED) 

Ad Valorem 

6. 

Principle Residence Exemption: 

0% 

5. 

Property Legal Description: 

NE BROADWAY 

N 30.65 FT OF 6 AND VAC 10 FT OF LAND IN FRONT PLAT OF SEC 9 GOVERNOR & JUDGES PLAN L34 P552 DEE] 

6. Petitioner timely filed an appeal to the March Board of Review. 

7. The March Board 

of Review considered 

(if any) petitioner's and/or duly authorized representative evidence 

and/or testimony. The March Board of Review considered facts presented as on the assessment roll and/or any 

recommendations offered by the Office of the Assessor. 

CONCLUSION: 

Taxable Value Uncapping due to Proposal A of 1994 

Before Appeal 

After Appeal 

2025 

Assessed Value 

411,700 

411,700 

2025 

Taxable Value 

184,490 

411,700 

If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the March Board of Review, submit this notice and complete the enclosed 

small claims form to appeal to: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing 

MI 48909 

A Michigan 

Tax Tribunal appeal 

must be made 

by May 31st 

of the current year for properties classified 

as: 

Commercial 

Real, 

Industrial 

Real, 

Commercial 

Personal, 

Industrial 

Personal 

and 

Utility 

Personal 

Property. 

A Michigan Tax Tribunal appeal must be made by July 31st 

of the current year for Residential Real Property 

Classification. 

A property Classification 

appeal 

may 

only 

be made 

for the current year. Such appeal may 

be 

filed 

with the 

State Tax Commission, 

PO Box 30471, 

Lansing, 

MI 48909-7971 

by June 30th 

of the current year. 

Sincerely, 

City of Detroit Board of Review 

COFD 

/ 0007899 

/ 0055287

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

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 

First Name 

M.I. 

Last Name/Company Name 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

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

First Name 

M.I 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

parcelsareyou | [7] yes* 

[] No* 

appealing? 

*If yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

**If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

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

Taxing Authority (City or Township) 

County 

COFD 

/ 0007899 

/ 0055288

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information «use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

(check one) 

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

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

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

Page 4

ST

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

/

 

 

 

MTT Docket #25- 

Parcel No. 01004005. 

 

 

 

PETITION 

 

 

BROADWAY DETROIT DEVELOPMENT II LLC (“Petitioner”), through its 

attorneys, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: 

 

1. 

Petitioner's principal office address is 1300 Broadway, Suite 600, 

Detroit, MI 48226. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes 

on real property tax parcel nos. 01004005. ("Petitioner's Property"), at 1322 

Broadway, Detroit, MI, 48226. 

 

2. 

Respondent, City of Detroit assesses and collects property taxes on 

Petitioner's Property. 

 

3. 

 In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Parcel # 01004005. to be $184,490 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $411,700 

resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the tenative 

equalization factor.

Page 2

4. 

At the March Board of Review, Respondent erroneosly uncapped 

Petitioner’s Taxable Value and Adjusted it up to $411,700. 

 

5. 

Th Notice giving rise to this change was dated May 17, 2025 and is 

attached hereto. This Notice is what Petiiton is timely and lawfully appealing 

from. 

 

6. 

Petitioner's Property is classified as Commercial Real Property. 

Petitioner's Property is commercial property. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was designed to be used as a commercial purposes. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, 

(c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that 

there is a dispute relative to an erroneous uncapping. 

 

7. 

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable 

value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the 

taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible 

under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

Page 3

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state 

equalized value, 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 assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an 

Order reducing and recapping the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel # 

01004005. from $411,700 to $184,490, and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner 

the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: June 12, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

By: _________________________ 

 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

 330 Hamilton Row, Ste 350 

 Birmingham, MI 48009 

 (248) 767-9840

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

Broadway Detroit Development II LLC

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

1300 Broadway

Suite 600

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

2487679840

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

aaron@afaleslaw.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Aaron

M.I.

M

Last Name

Fales

Firm Name (if any)

Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C.

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

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

248-767-9840

Fax Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

afaleslaw@gmail.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

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

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City of Detroit (Wayne)

County

Wayne

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.)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

Uncapping of Taxable Value

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

01004005.

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review:

411700

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

411700

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

823400

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

411700

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

184490

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

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

Fee Information

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.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Aaron Fales

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.