Carlton Acquisition LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit 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

NOTICE OF JULY 16- 30, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE

Carlton Acquisition LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 26-000749

Please be advised that 26-000749 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing July 16, 2027. 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covered by the order will not be published.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. 26-000749

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 March 19, 2027. 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 March 19, 2027. 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 

March 19, 2027, 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 

July 16, 2027, 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

Page 3

MT

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

Page 1

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-000749 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 05003477-8 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION and 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Now Comes Respondent, City of Detroit, by and through it undersigned counsel and in Answer 

to the Amended Petition filed in this matter states the following: 

The Parties 

 

1. Respondent, City of Detroit, neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

The Subject Property 

3. Respondent admits as true. 

4. Respondent admits as true. 

5. Respondent admits as true. 

 The 2026 Assessment 

6. Respondent admits as true. 

7. Respondent admits as true.

Page 2

2 

 

8. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

9. Respondent admits as true. 

10. Respondent admits that this appeal contains issues of valuation for assessment 

purposes of the subject property, although Petitioner does not believe that this appeal 

involves issues of “additions” or “losses, but reserves the right to assert said issues. 

Respondent reserves the right to property respond, should Petitioner raise said issues. 

11. Respondent denies that the 2026 assessment is violative of the Michigan Constitution, 

the GPTA and other Michigan law. Respondent also denies the other allegations 

contained in the corresponding paragraph. 

12. Petitioner denies the allegations in the corresponding paragraph. 

 

 

CONCLUSION and REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. 

Dated: July 7, 2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin C. Richard ( P 43417) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226

Page 3

3 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, City of Detroit, and asserts the following Affirmative 

Defenses to the Petitioner’s claims: 

1. 

Petitioner’s lacks standing and/or capacity to bring forth this Petition. 

2. 

Petitioner’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

3. 

This Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

 

4. 

Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. 

Dated: 

July 7, 2026 

 

 

/s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin C. Richard ( P 43417) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313.237.3075 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cobbm@detroitmi.gov

Page 4

4 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On July 7, 2026, I mailed by first class mail a copy of Respondent’s Answer and Affirmative 

Defenses to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel, Esq. 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave, Ste. 300 

 

 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

 

 

 

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

belief. 

 

Dated: July 7,2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-000749

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

City of Detroit (Wayne)

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Telephone 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

Mary Beth

M.I.

Last Name

Cobbs

Firm Name (if any)

City of Detroit

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

2 Woodward Avenue

Suite 500

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

313-237-3075

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

cobbm@detroitmi.gov

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Mary Beth Cobbs

/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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 26-000749 

Parcel No. 05003477-8 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

bee@wwrplaw.com 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF PETITION, AMENDED PETITION 

AND NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

Page 2

PROOF OF SERVICE OF PETITION, AMENDED PETITION 

AND NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER 

Sarah Conner states that she served copies of the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, 

Amended Petition, Notice of Docket Number and this Proof of Service, on the persons listed 

below, by placing copies of those documents in a duly stamped, addressed envelope and placing 

the envelope in the United States mail on June 10, 2026. 

PERSONS SERVED: 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 

VIA FIRST CLASS US MAIL 

Assessor 

Clerk 

Secretary of School Board 

City of Detroit 

Wayne County 

Detroit Community Schools 

2 Woodward Ave, Ste. 804 

400 Monroe St., 6 Floor 

3011 W. Grand Blvd. 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Detroit, MI 48202 

Clerk 

Director of Equalization 

State Treasurer 

City of Detroit 

Wayne County 

Michigan Dep’t of Treasury 

2 Woodward Ave #200 

400 Monroe St., Ste. 600 

Austin Building 

Detroit, MI 48226 

Detroit MI 48226 

430 W. Allegan 

Lansing, MI 

48922 

ak | 

% Dan 

Sarah Conner

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

1 of 1

Docket #: 26-000749

Party Filing Document

Party Filing Document: 

 Petitioner

 Petitioner

 

 

If 'other', Identify: 

File

Document Type: 

 

 

fuFile:

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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC, 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 05003477-8 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

bee@wwrplaw.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

Petitioner Carlton Acquisition, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Williams, Williams, 

Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Carlton Acquisition, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company whose 

address is 186 N Main St. Fl. 2 Ste. 1, Plymouth, MI 48170. 

2. 

Respondent City of Detroit a Michigan municipal corporation with its primary 

offices located at 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

Page 2

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 05003477-8 and commonly 

known as 1301 Rivard, Detroit MI 48207 (the “Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Wayne County and is within the Detroit 

Community school district. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the 

Subject Property. 

The 2026 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as residential 

improved property. 

7. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment 

for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 9,777,000 

 4,888,500 

 1,990,866 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2026 

tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 5,500,000 

 2,750,000 

 1,990,866 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 4,277,000 

 2,138,500 

0 

 

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for 

assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out 

of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”),

Page 3

defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues involving losses should information 

supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the 

GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based 

on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment is not 

uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject 

Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal enter 

judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment to be consistent with the values set forth 

in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled under 

Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Brian E. Etzel 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

Dated: May 6, 2026 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC

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

186 N Main St.

Fl. 2 Ste. 1

City or Town

Plymouth

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48170

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

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

bee@wwrplaw.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Brian

M.I.

E

Last Name

Etzel

Firm Name (if any)

Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett PC

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

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

22

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

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

BEEtzel@wwrplaw.com

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

1

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

1301 Rivard, MI

Detroit

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48207

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.)

N/A

 

 

Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values

Other (please explain)

If “Other”, please explain:

Assessed Value Only

 

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

05003477-8

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Commercial (check one)

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

4888500

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

1990866

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

5500000

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

2750000

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

1990866

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.

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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/ Brian E. Etzel

Payment Information

Amount: 600

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26050684226410

Supporting Waiver Documents:

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

Carlton Acquisition LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-000749

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: June 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

Brian E Etzel

Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett PC

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300

Birmingham , MI 48009

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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC, 

 

 

Docket No. 26-000749 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 05003477-8 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

bee@wwrplaw.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMENDED ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

Petitioner Carlton Acquisition, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Williams, Williams, 

Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Amended Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Carlton Acquisition, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company whose 

address is 186 N Main St. Fl. 2 Ste. 1, Plymouth, MI 48170. 

2. 

Respondent City of Detroit a Michigan municipal corporation with its primary 

offices located at 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

Page 2

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 05003477-8 and commonly 

known as 1301 Rivard, Detroit MI 48207 (the “Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Wayne County and is within the Detroit 

Community school district. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the 

Subject Property. 

The 2026 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as commercial 

improved property. 

7. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment 

for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 9,777,000 

 4,888,500 

 1,990,866 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2026 

tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 5,500,000 

 2,750,000 

 1,990,866 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 4,277,000 

 2,138,500 

0 

 

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for 

assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out 

of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”),

Page 3

defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues involving losses should information 

supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the 

GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based 

on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment is not 

uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject 

Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal enter 

judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment to be consistent with the values set forth 

in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled under 

Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Brian E. Etzel 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

Dated: May 7, 2026 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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

1 of 1

Docket #: 26-000749

Party Filing Document

Party Filing Document: 

 Petitioner

 Petitioner

 

 

If 'other', Identify: 

File

Document Type: 

 

 

fuFile:

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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC, 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 05003477-8 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

bee@wwrplaw.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

Petitioner Carlton Acquisition, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Williams, Williams, 

Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Carlton Acquisition, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company whose 

address is 186 N Main St. Fl. 2 Ste. 1, Plymouth, MI 48170. 

2. 

Respondent City of Detroit a Michigan municipal corporation with its primary 

offices located at 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48226.

Page 2

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 05003477-8 and commonly 

known as 1301 Rivard, Detroit MI 48207 (the “Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Wayne County and is within the Detroit 

Community school district. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the 

Subject Property. 

The 2026 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as residential 

improved property. 

7. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment 

for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 9,777,000 

 4,888,500 

 1,990,866 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2026 

tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 5,500,000 

 2,750,000 

 1,990,866 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 4,277,000 

 2,138,500 

0 

 

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for 

assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out 

of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”),

Page 3

defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues involving losses should information 

supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the 

GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based 

on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment is not 

uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject 

Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal enter 

judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment to be consistent with the values set forth 

in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled under 

Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Brian E. Etzel 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

Dated: May 6, 2026 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

CARLTON ACQUISITION, LLC

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

186 N Main St.

Fl. 2 Ste. 1

City or Town

Plymouth

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48170

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

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

bee@wwrplaw.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Brian

M.I.

E

Last Name

Etzel

Firm Name (if any)

Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett PC

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

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

22

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

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

BEEtzel@wwrplaw.com

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

1

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

1301 Rivard, MI

Detroit

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48207

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.)

N/A

 

 

Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values

Other (please explain)

If “Other”, please explain:

Assessed Value Only

 

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

05003477-8

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Commercial (check one)

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

4888500

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

1990866

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

5500000

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

2750000

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

1990866

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.

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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/ Brian E. Etzel

Payment Information

Amount: 600

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26050684226410

Supporting Waiver Documents:

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.