Bsr 14 Mile LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak, 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

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002018

City Of Royal Oak,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Withdraw the Petition and the motion indicates that 

Petitioner informed Respondent of the motion and that Respondent concurs with the 

requested withdrawal. 

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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002018

Page 2 of 6

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 

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: January 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002018

City Of Royal Oak,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Withdraw the Petition and the motion indicates that 

Petitioner informed Respondent of the motion and that Respondent concurs with the 

requested withdrawal. 

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.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002018

Page 4 of 6

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 

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: January 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal

Page 5

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002018 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

kmelcher@hallahanlaw.com

Motion to Withdraw Appeal 

For this Motion, Petitioner states: 

Petitioner desires to withdraw its Petition and files this Motion pursuant to Tax Tribunal 

Rule 231, R 792.10231 and MCL 205.732(c). Respondent’s counsel has confirmed that 

Respondent concurs in the Tribunal’s dismissing this case. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an Order allowing the Petition 

to be withdrawn, or dismissing this case, with each party bearing its own costs. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP, 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By: __/s/ Stewart Mandell_____ 

Stewart Mandell (P33781) 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7420 

January 7, 2026 

slmandell@honigman.com

Page 2

2 

63298210.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002018 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

kmelcher@hallahanlaw.com

Proof of Service 

Lisa Joseph states that that on January 7, 2026, she did serve a copy of the foregoing Motion 

to Withdraw Appeal via electronic mail, upon: 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

kmelcher@hallahanlaw.com

/s/ Lisa Joseph 

Dated: January 7, 2026 

Lisa Joseph

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

NOTICE OF DECEMBER 1 - 14, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

BSR 14 Mile LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Royal Oak,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002018

Please be advised that 25-002018 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing December 01, 2026. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be 

notified at least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not 

necessarily occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no 

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure” 

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a 

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the 

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and 

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

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

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket 

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the 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.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, 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 submitting a Request for Redactions. The 

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages 

of the Tribunal’s website. 

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s 

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002018

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties 

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being 

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure 

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures 

by August 4, 2026. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence 

unless disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though 

admissible) except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing 

Statements by August 4, 2026. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will 

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the 

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding 

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in 

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

August 4, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that 

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating 

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted 

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

December 1, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to 

Compel have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged 

by that date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s 

valuation disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified 

on the opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain 

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date 

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this 

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one 

week before they are scheduled to appear. 

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: January 2, 2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002018

Page 3 of 3

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 4

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

NOTICE OF DECEMBER 1 - 14, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF

Page 5

MTT

Page 6

MTT

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 TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

BSR 14 MILE LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF ROYAL OAK, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002018 

Parcel No. 72-20-32-351-001 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

STEWART L. MANDELL (P33781) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(313) 465-7420 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent, City of Royal Oak, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 insofar as it is the entity that 

assesses and collects property taxes with relation to the parcel identified in the Petition. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to the stated values.

Page 2

2

4. 

Respondent admits that subject property is classified as industrial improved. With 

respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein or as to Petitioner’s 

definition of “good condition.” Therefore, Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent 

denies any implication that the subject property’s 2025 assessment is not reflective of the subject 

property’s condition as of December 31, 2024. 

5. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but 

denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

6. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute relative to the value 

of a loss but denies that such a loss has occurred. 

7. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 7 for the reason 

that the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 

8. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a)-

(d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or 

taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value 

permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper 

principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and 

constitutional. 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of the Petition, but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in 

the above Paragraphs.

Page 3

3

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Royal Oak, requests the Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state 

equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

__/s/Laura M. Hallahan________________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Dated: August 15, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, City of Royal Oak, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

1. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action 

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the 

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 

(1981). 

3. 

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See 

MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 

4. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error 

of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent or 

its agents.

Page 4

4

5. 

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject 

property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in 

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 

6. 

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was 

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the 

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 

7. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen 

method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 

8. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by 

application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other 

properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 

9. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and 

state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

10. 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own 

intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise 

equitable tax burden. 

11. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

12. 

Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 

13. 

Respondent reserves the

Page 5

5

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 - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-002018

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Royal Oak (OAKLAND)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

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: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates, P.C.

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Kelsea M. Melcher

/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 

St 

JUN 06 2025 

Or 

We 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, 

pe 

X 

MTT Docket No. LS - 

5 DO, AE 

a 

Parcel No. 72-20-32-351-001 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Proof of Service 

Lisa Joseph states that on 

lf 2/ 2 $ 

, she did serve a copy of Petitioner's Petition, 

with docket number, upon the parties named on the attached list. 

Dated: 

©] 2/ 2S 

(odie Qraph

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

CLERK 

ROYAL OAK 

CITY HALL, 1ST FLOOR, 211 S. WILLIAMS STREET 

ROYAL OAK, MI 48067 

ASSESSOR 

ROYAL OAK 

CITY HALL, 1ST FLOOR, 211 S. WILLIAMS STREET 

ROYAL OAK, MI 48067 

AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

CLERK 

OAKLAND COUNTY 

1200 N. TELEGRAPH ROAD 

PONTIAC, MI 48341-0413 

DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZATION 

OAKLAND COUNTY 

1200 N. TELEGRAPH ROAD 

PONTIAC, MI 48341-0413 

SECRETARY OF SCHOOL BOARD 

ROYAL OAK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

800 DEVILLEN 

ROYAL OAK, MI 48073 

STATE TREASURER 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

TREASURY BUILDING 

430 W. ALLEGAN ST. 

LANSING, MI 48922 

25-0107

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

25-0029 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. ________ 

Parcel No. 72-20-32-351-001 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Petition 

BSR 14 Mile LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says: 

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 3663 Woodward Avenue, Suite 550, Detroit, 

MI 48201. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 72-

20-32-351-001 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 3200 W. 14 Mile Rd., Royal Oak, 

located in Oakland County, Michigan. 

2.

Respondent, City of Royal Oak, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's 

Property.

Page 2

2 

60718759.1 

3.

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

$1,590,850 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $1,590,850, which will result in a state equalized 

value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

4.

Petitioner's Property is classified as industrial improved. At all times relevant to 

this case, Petitioner's Property had a building that was not occupied and was not in good condition. 

Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for industrial 

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 the value of a loss. 

7.

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property. 

8.

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 

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, is at 

a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan 

Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, is 

based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion

Page 3

3 

60718759.1 

of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is 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: (i) reducing the 

2025 assessed value, state-equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner's Property from 

$1,590,850 to $1,250,000; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such 

reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is 

entitled. 

Dated: May 30, 2025

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

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

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002018

City Of Royal Oak, 

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 6, 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

25-0029 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BSR 14 Mile LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. ________ 

Parcel No. 72-20-32-351-001 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Petition 

BSR 14 Mile LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says: 

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 3663 Woodward Avenue, Suite 550, Detroit, 

MI 48201. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 72-

20-32-351-001 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 3200 W. 14 Mile Rd., Royal Oak, 

located in Oakland County, Michigan. 

2.

Respondent, City of Royal Oak, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's 

Property.

Page 2

2 

60718759.1 

3.

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

$1,590,850 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $1,590,850, which will result in a state equalized 

value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

4.

Petitioner's Property is classified as industrial improved. At all times relevant to 

this case, Petitioner's Property had a building that was not occupied and was not in good condition. 

Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for industrial 

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 the value of a loss. 

7.

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property. 

8.

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 

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, is at 

a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan 

Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, is 

based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion

Page 3

3 

60718759.1 

of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is 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: (i) reducing the 

2025 assessed value, state-equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner's Property from 

$1,590,850 to $1,250,000; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such 

reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is 

entitled. 

Dated: May 30, 2025

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

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

BSR 14 Mile LLC

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

3663 Woodward Avenue

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48201

Telephone Number

2485668300

Fax Number

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

ljoseph@honigman.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Stewart

M.I.

Last Name

Mandell

Firm Name (if any)

Honigman LLP

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

2290 First National Building

660 Woodward Avenue

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

313-465-7420

Fax Number

313-465-7421

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

slmandell@honigman.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 Royal Oak (OAKLAND)

County

Oakland

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)

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

72-20-32-351-001

Classification of Property: Real 

Industrial

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

1590850

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

1590850

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

2500000

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

1250000

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

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/ Stewart L. Mandell

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.