Carol J Biggs, Petitioner V 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 

Carol J Biggs, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner was placed in 

default on September 11, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice 

giving rise to the appeal, i.e., March Board of Review results. On October 9, 2025, the 

Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by an additional 14 days 

and they have failed to respond. Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the 

latter stated that “[f]ailure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of the 

case . . .” and referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.1 In Grimm, the Michigan Court of 

Appeals summarized factors that the Tribunal should consider before imposing the 

sanction of dismissal. Those factors are: 

 

(1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of 

refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the 

opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the 

degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) attempts to 

cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the 

interests of justice.2 

 

Here, Petitioner’s failure to comply with multiple orders has established a history of 

deliberate delay. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and 

considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal 

finds that dismissal is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate in 

light of Petitioner’s history of noncompliance in this case. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

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

 

 

1 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002982 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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 

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: November 5, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

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

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 

Carol J Biggs, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

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

holding Petitioner in default on September 11, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a 

copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. March Board of Review (BOR) results.1 

Petitioner was required to cure the default within 14 days. Petitioner has had ample 

time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though the 

Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to 

comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a 

history of deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of the case for failure to timely 

comply with this order.2 

 

Additionally, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is appealing assessments for the 2023 

and 2024 tax years, and the Tribunal has no authority over those assessments under 

MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.3 Further, the Tribunal also has no 

authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not establish that the 

assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, 

typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous 

belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). Rather, the facts alleged indicate 

a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual 

mistake of fact. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file a copy of the March BOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, 

 

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

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

2 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

3 A list of Tribunal rules are available online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002982 

Page 2 of 2 

 

and (3) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed 

with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.4 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by 

TTR 237. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY 

DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 Tax Year only. 

 

 

Entered: October 9, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

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 

Carol J Biggs, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

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

holding Petitioner in default on September 11, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a 

copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. March Board of Review (BOR) results.1 

Petitioner was required to cure the default within 14 days. Petitioner has had ample 

time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though the 

Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to 

comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a 

history of deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of the case for failure to timely 

comply with this order.2 

 

Additionally, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is appealing assessments for the 2023 

and 2024 tax years, and the Tribunal has no authority over those assessments under 

MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.3 Further, the Tribunal also has no 

authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not establish that the 

assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, 

typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous 

belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). Rather, the facts alleged indicate 

a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual 

mistake of fact. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file a copy of the March BOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, 

 

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

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

2 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

3 A list of Tribunal rules are available online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002982 

Page 2 of 2 

 

and (3) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed 

with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.4 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by 

TTR 237. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY 

DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 Tax Year only. 

 

 

Entered: October 9, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

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

Carol J Biggs,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

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

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

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

14 days of the entry of this order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

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

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

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

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

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 11, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002982

Page 2 of 4

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

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

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

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

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Carol J Biggs,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

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

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

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

14 days of the entry of this order.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

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

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

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

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

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 11, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

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

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

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

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002982

Page 4 of 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax 

disputes.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review 

Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Carol 

M.I.

J 

Last Name/Company Name

Biggs 

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

1265 Washington Blvd

2404

City or Town

Detroit

State

Florida

ZIP Code

48214

Telephone Number

3053010826

Fax Number

E-mail Address

safefutureaco@gmail.com

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

First Name

Carol

M.I.

Joy

Last Name

Biggs Owens

Firm Name (if any)

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

532 Parkview Drive

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48214

Telephone Number

305-301-0826

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

owensjoy335@gmail.com

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

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

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

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

400 PARKVIEW DR

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

DETROIT

Michigan

48214

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City of Detroit (Wayne)

County 

Wayne

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

True Cash and Taxable Value

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

Dear Honorable Members of the Michigan Tax Tribunal,

I am writing to formally appeal the assessed and taxable values assigned to my property located at 400 Parkview Drive in Detroit for the tax years 2023, 2024, and 

2025. I respectfully request a reassessment based on the actual market value, condition of the property, and ongoing restoration efforts.

I purchased 400 Parkview Drive in July 2023 for $365,000. This amount reflects the true market value of the property at the time of purchase. The home was in a 

blighted and deteriorated condition, requiring immediate and significant investment to restore it to livable standards.

Despite the purchase price being $365,000, the 2025 Taxable Value is currently listed at $229,500, which equates to a market value of roughly $459,000—well 

above what was paid. This inflated value does not accurately represent the state of the home either at the time of purchase or currently.

Furthermore, I question the fairness and legal justification of such a steep increase when Michigan’s Proposal A (MCL 211.27a) clearly limits annual increases in 

taxable value to the lesser of 5% or the rate of inflation—except in cases of an uncapping event. The increase in taxable value from the time of purchase suggests a 

misapplication of this rule and an overstatement of value.

Since taking ownership, I have invested over $165,000 in critical renovations, including structural repairs, safety code compliance, and basic livability upgrades. 

Despite this substantial investment, the home remains unfinished and requires additional capital to restore key elements, including a full driveway replacement, 

which has not yet been completed. These facts further demonstrate that the current value assessments are speculative and not reflective of the home’s true and 

current market condition.

Impact of Overassessment

The current overassessment has placed a significant financial burden on me and has rendered the property ineligible for certain preservation-based tax 

abatements—programs that would otherwise support the revitalization of Detroit’s historic neighborhoods. This undermines both my personal investment and the 

broader public interest in restoring and preserving Detroit’s historic housing stock.

I am requesting that the Tribunal reduce the Assessed and Taxable Values for 2023, 2024, and 2025 to reflect the fair market value supported by the actual purchase 

price of $365,000 and the property's ongoing restoration status. I further request that any increase in taxable value be recalculated in accordance with the legal limits 

established under Michigan law.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2023, 2024, 2025

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

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

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Parcel Identification Number: 19006133.002L

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

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

229500

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

229500

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

365000 

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

182500

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

182500

Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the

Page 4

STATE OF

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

Carol J Biggs,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: September 11, 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

Carol J Biggs,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002982

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: September 11, 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

[} 

© 

CAROL JOY BIGGS-OWENS 

CHASE 

24 HIAWATHA DR. 

PRIVATE 

BATTLE CREEK, MI 490153525 

CLIENT 

PAY TO THE 

ORDER OF. 

, 0 Michi 

63-8413/2670 

owe/ 39, ET 

| $900— 

—. vs hod 

hed Lo 

ewe DP 

ures 

f mo 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 

uD 00298 2 

=e 

RECEIVED 

AUG 06 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Page 2

Be 

METROPLEX MI 480 

G44 

B 

X 

94s RI/Z 

AF 2Yoy 

1 AUG 2025 

PM 16L 

2 

Chega 

| ff226 

0a 

| Hs Sp 

AEE BT THREE 

I 

I 

RE I CT ED 

ee 

| TB eT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or Non-Property tax 

disputes.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Board of Review 

Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Carol 

M.I.

J 

Last Name/Company Name

Biggs 

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

1265 Washington Blvd

2404

City or Town

Detroit

State

Florida

ZIP Code

48214

Telephone Number

3053010826

Fax Number

E-mail Address

safefutureaco@gmail.com

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

First Name

Carol

M.I.

Joy

Last Name

Biggs Owens

Firm Name (if any)

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

532 Parkview Drive

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48214

Telephone Number

305-301-0826

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

owensjoy335@gmail.com

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

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

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

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

400 PARKVIEW DR

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

DETROIT

Michigan

48214

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City of Detroit (Wayne)

County 

Wayne

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

True Cash and Taxable Value

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

Dear Honorable Members of the Michigan Tax Tribunal,

I am writing to formally appeal the assessed and taxable values assigned to my property located at 400 Parkview Drive in Detroit for the tax years 2023, 2024, and 

2025. I respectfully request a reassessment based on the actual market value, condition of the property, and ongoing restoration efforts.

I purchased 400 Parkview Drive in July 2023 for $365,000. This amount reflects the true market value of the property at the time of purchase. The home was in a 

blighted and deteriorated condition, requiring immediate and significant investment to restore it to livable standards.

Despite the purchase price being $365,000, the 2025 Taxable Value is currently listed at $229,500, which equates to a market value of roughly $459,000—well 

above what was paid. This inflated value does not accurately represent the state of the home either at the time of purchase or currently.

Furthermore, I question the fairness and legal justification of such a steep increase when Michigan’s Proposal A (MCL 211.27a) clearly limits annual increases in 

taxable value to the lesser of 5% or the rate of inflation—except in cases of an uncapping event. The increase in taxable value from the time of purchase suggests a 

misapplication of this rule and an overstatement of value.

Since taking ownership, I have invested over $165,000 in critical renovations, including structural repairs, safety code compliance, and basic livability upgrades. 

Despite this substantial investment, the home remains unfinished and requires additional capital to restore key elements, including a full driveway replacement, 

which has not yet been completed. These facts further demonstrate that the current value assessments are speculative and not reflective of the home’s true and 

current market condition.

Impact of Overassessment

The current overassessment has placed a significant financial burden on me and has rendered the property ineligible for certain preservation-based tax 

abatements—programs that would otherwise support the revitalization of Detroit’s historic neighborhoods. This undermines both my personal investment and the 

broader public interest in restoring and preserving Detroit’s historic housing stock.

I am requesting that the Tribunal reduce the Assessed and Taxable Values for 2023, 2024, and 2025 to reflect the fair market value supported by the actual purchase 

price of $365,000 and the property's ongoing restoration status. I further request that any increase in taxable value be recalculated in accordance with the legal limits 

established under Michigan law.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2023, 2024, 2025

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

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

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Parcel Identification Number: 19006133.002L

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

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

229500

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

229500

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

365000 

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

182500

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

182500

Section 8: Classification Information *Only the MI Dep’t of Treasury may appeal this issue to the

Page 4

STATE OF

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.