Christ New Covenant Church, Petitioner Vs. City Of Oak Park, 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 

Christ New Covenant Church, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002101 

 

City Of Oak Park, 

 

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 August 12, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a completed Entire Tribunal 

petition and failed to pay the full required filing fee.1 On September 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 “failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of the case 

. . .” and referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.2 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.3 

 

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 Information on Tribunal rules and filing fees can be found online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

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

3 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002101 

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: October 6, 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 

Christ New Covenant Church, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002101 

 

City of Oak Park, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

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

holding Petitioner in default on August 12, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a 

complete Entire Tribunal petition and failed to pay the full amount required for the filing 

of the petition.1 Specifically, Petitioner failed to complete sections 11, 12 and 13 of the 

petition2 and failed to pay the additional $250.00 fee required for the filing of the 

petition.3 Information on Tribunal rules, filing fees, and a filing fee calculator are 

available online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Petitioner was required to cure the default 

within 14 days, has had ample time to comply, and 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 the 

dismissal of the case for failure to timely comply with this order.4 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 completed Entire Tribunal petition, (2) pay the additional $250.00 fee 

required for the filing of the petition, (3) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, (4) pay the 

$50.00 fee required for the filing of the motion, and (5) file proof the motion and 

amended petition were served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the 

Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.5 

 

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 TTR 233. 

3 TTR 223. 

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

5 “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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002101 

Page 2 of 2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition shall note the docket number assigned by 

the Tribunal. Unfortunately, the filing of the amended petition and payment of the filing 

fee may not be filed online. 

 

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

TTR 237.6 

 

 

Entered: September 9, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac/jcr 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

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). 

6 See also MCL 205.732.

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 

 

 

CHRIST NEW COVENANT CHURCH, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No.: 25-002101 

 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property ID # 52-25-19-226-013 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF OAK PARK, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

KERI S. SABBATH 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

Petitioner’s Authorized Representative 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

25 Birdwoode Dr. 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

Pontiac MI 48340 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

Altair2257@gmail.com 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

(586) 863-8010 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ckrause@garanlucow.com 

 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

 

Please enter the appearance of GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. by Courtney A. 

Krause, as attorneys for Respondent, CITY OF OAK PARK. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ckrause@garanlucow.com 

Dated: August 26, 2025

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

CHRIST NEW COVENANT CHURCH, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No.: 25-002101 

 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property ID # 52-25-19-226-013 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF OAK PARK, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

KERI S. SABBATH 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

Petitioner’s Authorized Representative 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

25 Birdwoode Dr. 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

Pontiac MI 48340 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

Altair2257@gmail.com 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

(586) 863-8010 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ckrause@garanlucow.com 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S TAX PETITION 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, CITY OF OAK PARK, by and through its attorneys, 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C., and in answer to Petitioner’s petition states as follows: 

 

1. 

Answering paragraph 1, Respondent admits that the property parcel 

number subject to the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition is 52-25-19-226-013. 

 

2. 

Answering paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained 

therein. 

 

3. 

Answering paragraph 3, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable. 

 

4. 

Answering paragraph 4, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable.

Page 2

2

 

5. 

Answering paragraph 5, Respondent admits that parcels of personal 

property are not under appeal. 

 

6. 

Answering paragraph 6, Respondent admits that the property is properly 

classified as commercial-improved. 

 

7. 

Answering paragraph 7, Respondent admits the allegations contained 

therein. 

 

8. 

Answering paragraph 8, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable. 

9. 

Answering paragraph 9, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable. 

10. 

Answering paragraph 10, Respondent admits that the property at issue is 

located in Oakland County and is commonly known as 14001 W Eleven Mile Rd., Oak 

Park, MI 48237. 

11. 

Answering paragraph 11, Respondent admits that the assessment at issue 

was established by the City of Oak Park. 

12. 

Answering paragraph 12, Petitioner has left this paragraph blank and 

Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to identify the Petitioner’s legal 

residence or principal office. 

13. 

Answering paragraph 13, Petitioner left this paragraph black. Respondent 

otherwise acknowledges that this appeal involves issues relating to the property’s 

exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL 211.7s for the tax year 2025, only. 

Pursuant to the Order for Partial Dismissal entered by the Tribunal on August 12, 2025, 

the Tribunal has no authority over the assessments for tax years 2022-2024.

Page 3

3

14. 

Answering paragraph 14, Respondent admits that the only tax year at issue 

is 2025. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 14 pursuant to the 

Order for Partial Dismissal entered by the Tribunal on August 12, 2025. 

15. 

Answering paragraph 15, denies the allegations as untrue. Petitioner has 

not presented the Respondent with any information suggesting that services are being 

held in the building. Respondent further avers that the building is vacant, utility service to 

the building has been shut off since 2022 and the property has been subject to multiple 

code enforcement actions for trash/debris, overgrown weeds and grass, graffiti, and 

property maintenance violations including failure to complete timely snow removal. 

16. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 

Board of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$293,600 

$146,800 

$146,800 

 

 

17. 

Answering paragraph 17, Respondent denies that the Petitioner’s property 

is exempt for the reason that the property does not qualify for an exemption under MCL 

211.7s. 

 

18. 

Answering paragraph 18, Respondent denies that the subject property is 

exempt from ad valorem taxation under MCL 211.7s. The values in dispute for the 

property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$293,600 

$146,800 

$146,800

Page 4

4

 

19. 

Answering paragraph 19, Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to 

the requested relief when the property is not used predominantly for religious services or 

for reaching the religious truths and beliefs of the Petitioner. 

 

20. 

Answering paragraph 20, Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner is 

seeking an exemption pursuant to MCR 211.7s as a house of worship. Respondent 

denies that Petitioner is entitled to the exemption when the property is not used 

predominantly for religious services or for reaching the religious truths and beliefs of the 

Petitioner. When a taxpayer seeks an exemption, that taxpayer has the burden of proving 

entitlement to it by a preponderance of the evidence. Contrary to the Petitioner’s 

assertions, the property is currently vacant and listed for sale. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF OAK PARK, asks this Honorable Tribunal 

to affirm the decision of Respondent’s Board of Review and find that the subject property 

does not qualify for the parsonage exemption under MCL 211.7s. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522

Page 5

5

1. 

The subject

Page 6

6

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. 25-002101

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Oak Park (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

Courtney

M.I.

A

Last Name

Krause

Firm Name (if any)

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

1155 Brewery Park Blvd

Suite 200

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48207

Telephone Number

313-446-5522

Fax Number

313-259-0450

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

ckrause@garanlucow.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Courtney Krause

/s/

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Christ New Covenant Church,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002101

City Of Oak Park,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition and has also failed to pay the full 

required fee for the filing of the petition. See TTR 233 and 223. As such, the appeal is 

not properly pending. See TTR 227. Petitioner must file an amended petition and pay 

the additional fee amount required for the filing of the petition within 14 days of the entry 

of this order. The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal. 

Tribunal rules and information on Entire Tribunal petitions and filing fees can be found 

on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Unfortunately, the payment may not be 

made via e-filing.

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: August 12, 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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002101

Page 2 of 2

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. 

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

Christ New Covenant Church,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002101

City Of Oak Park,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

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

is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no authority over 

those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.1 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”).2 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 Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The 

appeal shall continue for the 2025 tax year(s) only.

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 12, 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

1 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

2 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

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 

 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________ 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

 

2. 

The property identified above is ___real ___personal. 

 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-

contiguous parcel.) 

 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as _________________________ 

 

7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made 

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

 

 

 

Christ New Covenant Church of Southfield

52-25-19-226-013

X

201 Commercial Improved

X

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

 

8. 

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the 

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which 

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or 

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

 

 

 

 

 

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable 

local governmental unit): ________________________________________ 

 

12. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

 

 

 

 

 

13. 

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): 

________the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

________the property or properties’ taxable value only 

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes ___No 

________uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL ______ 

 

14. 

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland

14001 W. Eleven Mile Rd. Oak Park, MI. 48237

2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

Page 3

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 3 of 4 

 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior 

tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

16. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 

Board of Review are: 

 

Tax Year

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the 

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property use continually as a House of Worship since 1997.

Petitioner use of the property as a house of worship since 1988 to present.

2022

141,047

141,047

2023

157,815

148,099

2024

143,500

143,500

2025

146,800

146,800

2022

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2023

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2024

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2025

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2022

141,047

2023

148,099

2024

143,500

2025

146,800

Property to return to tax exempt status, be remove from the Ad-Valorem Roll for tax 

years 2022 thru 2025. That propertry classification per G.P.T.A. Section 211.7s be 

classified as a house of worship.

Chapter 211 Act 206 of 1893 Real Estate Exemptions 211.7s House of Worship

Page 4

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 

Printed Name of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 

Email Address:

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

Christ New Covenant Church, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002101

City Of Oak Park, 

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 12, 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

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 

 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________ 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

 

2. 

The property identified above is ___real ___personal. 

 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-

contiguous parcel.) 

 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as _________________________ 

 

7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made 

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

 

 

 

Christ New Covenant Church of Southfield

52-25-19-226-013

X

201 Commercial Improved

X

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

 

8. 

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the 

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which 

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or 

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

 

 

 

 

 

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable 

local governmental unit): ________________________________________ 

 

12. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

 

 

 

 

 

13. 

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): 

________the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

________the property or properties’ taxable value only 

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes ___No 

________uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL ______ 

 

14. 

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oakland

14001 W. Eleven Mile Rd. Oak Park, MI. 48237

2022, 2023, 2024, 2025

Page 3

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 3 of 4 

 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior 

tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

16. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 

Board of Review are: 

 

Tax Year

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the 

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property use continually as a House of Worship since 1997.

Petitioner use of the property as a house of worship since 1988 to present.

2022

141,047

141,047

2023

157,815

148,099

2024

143,500

143,500

2025

146,800

146,800

2022

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2023

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2024

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2025

EXEMPT

EXEMPT

2022

141,047

2023

148,099

2024

143,500

2025

146,800

Property to return to tax exempt status, be remove from the Ad-Valorem Roll for tax 

years 2022 thru 2025. That propertry classification per G.P.T.A. Section 211.7s be 

classified as a house of worship.

Chapter 211 Act 206 of 1893 Real Estate Exemptions 211.7s House of Worship

Page 4

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 

Printed Name of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 

Email Address:

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: Individual

First Name/Company Name

Christ New Covenant Church

M.I.

Last Name

sabbath

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

25 Birwoode Dr.

City or Town

Pontiac

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48340

Telephone Number

5868638010

Fax Number

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

altair2257@gmail.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

keri

M.I.

Last Name

sabbath

Firm Name (if any)

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

25 Birwoode Dr.

City or Town

Pontiac

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48340

Telephone Number

586-863-8010

Fax Number

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

altair2257@gmail.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Classification – Fill out Sections 4, & 9 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]

14001 W.Eleven Mile Rd.

Oak Park

Michigan

48340

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Oak Park (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)

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

Classification of Property: 

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

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

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

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

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:

52-25-19-226-013

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: Real 

Commercial

What do you believe is the property’s classification? Real

Commercial

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?

House of Worship

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

House of worship

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/ keri sabbath

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.