Commerce Investment Company LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Commerce, 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 

Commerce Investment Company LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

 

Commerce Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the Stipulation and finds that it comports with the mandates 

of State law.1 As a result, the Tribunal shall enter the parties’ Stipulation. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment including all 

attachments, terms and conditions is GRANTED and ADOPTED, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values as provided in this 

Consent Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment.2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund as 

required by the Consent Judgment within 28 days of the entry of the Consent 

Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall, unless otherwise indicated, include a 

proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and of penalty and 

interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also, unless otherwise indicated, 

separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being 

refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall, unless 

otherwise indicated, bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment and 

the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the 

Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 

days after the issuance of this Consent Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest 

shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

Page 2 of 2 

 

2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, 

through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 

31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at 

the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 

6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) 

after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after 

December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 

2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, 

through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 

30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at 

the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 

9.47%, (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%, 

and (xix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. 

 

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

 

See docket look up for a copy of stipulation and for any possible refund paragraph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

Entered: January 30, 2026 

sb 

 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Commerce Investment Company, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Commerce Township, 

Respondent. 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Docket No. 25-002468 

G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) 

JOl-IN W. KUMMER (P79967) 

LAURAM. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hi lls, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN & RENTROP, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39572 Woodward Ave., Suite 222 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 540-7 400 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1. 

The case is pending in the _x__ Entire Tribunal _ 

Small Claims Division. 

2. 

Properly Parcel Nos.: E-1 7-08-301-1 41 

E-17-08-301-142 

E-1 7-08-301-143 

E-17-08-301-146 

E-17-08-301-147 

3. 

The properties are located in Oakland County. 

4. 

Tbe 2025 values for the properties identified above as established by Respondent's Board 

of Review are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-1 7-08-301-142 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143 

$421,145 

$210,570 

$205,680 

E-17-08-301-146 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-147 

$378,925 

$189,460 

$185,060

Page 2

5. 

The 2025 values for the properties identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-142 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143 

$410,000 

$205,000 

$205,000 

E-17-08-301-146 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-147 

$370,000 

$185,000 

$185,000 

6. 

If stipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed or tax years 

added through motions to amend that have been granted by the Tribunal, list the separate 

facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the Tribunal's authority over those tax year or 

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

7. 

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties that would 

affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not limited to, the joint 

payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page if necessary): 

The parties agree that the stipulation regarding tlte subject property's assessed and 

taxable values is strictly for settlement purposes only, and only for tlze years involved, 

am/for no other purpose whatsoever. 

Petitioner hereby waives interest attributable to the reduction for all taxing authorities 

provided tlte refund is paid wit/tin 60 days from tlte date of entJy of tlte Judgment. 

Signature of Petitioner's 

Authorized Representative 

Isl Laura M. Hallahan 

Laura M. Hallahan 

Signature of Respondent's 

:;tztive~ 

G. Hans Rehtrop

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Commerce Investment Company, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Commerce Township, 

Respondent. 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Docket No. 25-002468 

G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) 

JOl-IN W. KUMMER (P79967) 

LAURAM. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hi lls, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN & RENTROP, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39572 Woodward Ave., Suite 222 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 540-7 400 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1. 

The case is pending in the _x__ Entire Tribunal _ 

Small Claims Division. 

2. 

Properly Parcel Nos.: E-1 7-08-301-1 41 

E-17-08-301-142 

E-1 7-08-301-143 

E-17-08-301-146 

E-17-08-301-147 

3. 

The properties are located in Oakland County. 

4. 

Tbe 2025 values for the properties identified above as established by Respondent's Board 

of Review are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-1 7-08-301-142 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143 

$421,145 

$210,570 

$205,680 

E-17-08-301-146 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-147 

$378,925 

$189,460 

$185,060

Page 2

5. 

The 2025 values for the properties identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-142 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143 

$410,000 

$205,000 

$205,000 

E-17-08-301-146 

$400,000 

$200,000 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-147 

$370,000 

$185,000 

$185,000 

6. 

If stipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed or tax years 

added through motions to amend that have been granted by the Tribunal, list the separate 

facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the Tribunal's authority over those tax year or 

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

7. 

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties that would 

affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not limited to, the joint 

payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page if necessary): 

The parties agree that the stipulation regarding tlte subject property's assessed and 

taxable values is strictly for settlement purposes only, and only for tlze years involved, 

am/for no other purpose whatsoever. 

Petitioner hereby waives interest attributable to the reduction for all taxing authorities 

provided tlte refund is paid wit/tin 60 days from tlte date of entJy of tlte Judgment. 

Signature of Petitioner's 

Authorized Representative 

Isl Laura M. Hallahan 

Laura M. Hallahan 

Signature of Respondent's 

:;tztive~ 

G. Hans Rehtrop

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

COMMERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel Nos. 

17-08-301-141 

 v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-142 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-143 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-146 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-147 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

Lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com 

G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) 

JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967) 

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & 

RENTROP, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

(248) 540-7400 

Jkummer@anafirm.com 

 

 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

TO: 

CLERK OF THE COURT 

 

PLEASE ENTER the appearance of Adkison, Need, Allen, & Rentrop, PLLC for and on 

behalf of RESPONDENT CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE in the above-captioned 

matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC 

 

By: 

/s/ John W. Kummer 

 

John W. Kummer (P79967) 

Attorney for Respondent 

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

Dated: July 21, 2025 

(248) 540-7400

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

COMMERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel Nos. 

17-08-301-141 

 v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-142 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-143 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-146 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17-08-301-147 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

Lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com 

G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) 

JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967) 

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & 

RENTROP, PLLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

(248) 540-7400 

Jkummer@anafirm.com 

 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

Now comes Respondent, Charter Township of Commerce, which is located in Oakland 

County, Michigan, by its attorneys, Adkison, Need, Allen, & Rentrop, PLLC, and for its Answer 

to Petition states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 

4. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 

5. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 regarding the 

assessments established by Respondent. Respondent neither admits nor denies in regard to the

Page 3

Commerce Investment Company, LLC v. Charter Township of Commerce 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

Answer to Petition 

Page 2 

 

 

 

 

 

remainder of Paragraph 5 due to lack of sufficient information on which to form a belief and 

Petitioner is left to its proofs. 

6. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 for 

lack of sufficient information on which to form a belief and Petitioner is left to its proofs. 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 

8. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. The values established 

by Respondent's Board of Review for the subject property are as follows: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

E-17-08-301-141

$400,040

$200,020

$195,370

E-17-08-301-142

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143

$421,145 

$210,570 

$205,680 

E-17-08-301-146

$400,040

$200,020

$195,370

E-17-08-301-147

$378,925 

$189,460 

$185,060 

 

9. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 for lack of sufficient 

information on which to form a belief and Petitioner is left to its proofs. 

10. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. The values in dispute 

are as follows: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

E-17-08-301-141

$295,814

$147,907

$143,257

E-17-08-301-142

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-143

$316,919 

$158,457 

$153,567 

E-17-08-301-146

$295,814

$147,907

$143,257

E-17-08-301-147

$274,699 

$137,347 

$132,947 

 

11. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 for the reason that said 

allegations are untrue. 

12. 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 including 

subparagraphs (a) through (d), for the reason that the same are untrue. The assessed, state equalized 

and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash

Page 4

Commerce Investment Company, LLC v. Charter Township of Commerce 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

Answer to Petition 

Page 3 

 

 

 

 

 

value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correction application of 

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

and constitutional. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessments of the subject 

property, or increase same if the proofs submitted at trial warrant such action, and award Respondent 

its costs and fees incurred in defending this action. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC 

 

By: 

/s/ John W. Kummer 

 

John W. Kummer (P79967) 

Attorney for Respondent 

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

Dated: July 21, 2025 

(248) 540-7400 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent asserts the following affirmative defenses in response to Petitioner’s Petition: 

1. 

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

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

The Tribunal is charged with

Page 5

Commer

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. 25-002468

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

Township Of Commerce (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

John

M.I.

W

Last Name

Kummer

Firm Name (if any)

Adkison, Need, Allen, & Rentrop, PLLC

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

39572 Woodward Avenue

Suite 222

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48304

Telephone Number

248-540-7400

Fax Number

248-540-7401

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

jkummer@anafirm.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

John W. Kummer

/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

Commerce Investment Company LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002468

Township Of Commerce, 

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: July 14, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Commerce Investment Company, LLC, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

vs. 

 

Commerce Township, 

 

Respondent. 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002468 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(Property Tax Petition) 

 

On the date below I sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Petition to: 

 

Township Assessor 

Charter Township of Commerce 

2009 Township Drive 

Commerce Twp., MI 48390 

Township Supervisor 

Charter Township of Commerce 

2009 Township Drive 

Commerce Twp., MI 48390 

 

On the date below I sent by first class mail a copy of the Petition to: 

 

Equalization Director 

Oakland County 

250 Elizabeth Lake Road, Suite 1000W 

Pontiac, MI 48341 

 

County Clerk 

Oakland County 

1200 N. Telegraph Rd, Bldg. 12E 

Pontiac, MI 48341 

Secretary, Board of Education 

Huron Valley Schools 

2390 S. Milford Rd. 

Highland, MI 48357 

State Treasurer 

Department of Treasury 

430 W. Allegan Street 

Lansing, MI 48922 

 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Dated: July 10, 2025

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Commerce Investment Company, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

Commerce Township, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089

G. HANS RENTROP (P65121)

JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967)

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, &

RENTROP, PLLC

Attorneys for Respondent

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

(248) 540-7400

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) 

Petitioner, the taxpayer/party-in-interest, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

The property that is the subject of this appeal consists of:

☐

one real parcel

☒

multiple real parcels

2.

The subject property is:

Parcel Number 

Address 

Real/ 

Personal 

Classification 

E-17-08-301-141

2691 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-142

2695 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-143

2699 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-146

2711 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-147

2715 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

3.

☐ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s

☒March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review.

Page 3

4. 

The subject property is located in Oakland County and Huron Valley Schools district. 

5. 

The assessment(s) were established by the Respondent identified above. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 31500 Northwestern Hwy Suite 

105, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

☒ 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values 

☐ 

the subject property’s taxable value only 

 

there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No 

☐ 

uniformity of the subject property’s assessment 

☐ 

the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______ 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2025. 

8. 

The values established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

(TCV=true cash value, AV=assessed value, TV=taxable value) 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-142 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-146 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-147 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the subject property are: 

(TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value) 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-142 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-143 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-146 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-147 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

 

10. 

The values in dispute are. 

(TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value) 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-142 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-143 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-146 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-147 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257

Page 4

11. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal reduce the 2025 values from those established by 

Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order a refund with 

interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

12. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous 

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is 

taxable under Michigan law and is based upon the application of wrong principles; 

and 

(d) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner, its constitutional rights of 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES,

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Commerce Investment Company, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

Commerce Township, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002468 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089

G. HANS RENTROP (P65121)

JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967)

ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, &

RENTROP, PLLC

Attorneys for Respondent

39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

(248) 540-7400

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) 

Petitioner, the taxpayer/party-in-interest, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

The property that is the subject of this appeal consists of:

☐

one real parcel

☒

multiple real parcels

2.

The subject property is:

Parcel Number 

Address 

Real/ 

Personal 

Classification 

E-17-08-301-141

2691 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-142

2695 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-143

2699 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-146

2711 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

E-17-08-301-147

2715 Crystal Lake Dr 

Real 

Residential-Vacant 

3.

☐ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s

☒March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review.

Page 2

4. 

The subject property is located in Oakland County and Huron Valley Schools district. 

5. 

The assessment(s) were established by the Respondent identified above. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 31500 Northwestern Hwy Suite 

105, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

☒ 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values 

☐ 

the subject property’s taxable value only 

 

there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No 

☐ 

uniformity of the subject property’s assessment 

☐ 

the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______ 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2025. 

8. 

The values established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

(TCV=true cash value, AV=assessed value, TV=taxable value) 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

AV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-142 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-143 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-146 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

E-17-08-301-147 

$400,040 

$200,020 

$195,370 

 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the subject property are: 

(TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value) 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-142 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-143 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-146 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

E-17-08-301-147 

$104,226 

$52,113 

$52,113 

 

10. 

The values in dispute are. 

(TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value) 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

E-17-08-301-141 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-142 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-143 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-146 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257 

E-17-08-301-147 

$295,814 

$147,907 

$143,257

Page 3

11. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal reduce the 2025 values from those established by 

Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order a refund with 

interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

12. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous 

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is 

taxable under Michigan law and is based upon the application of wrong principles; 

and 

(d) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner, its constitutional rights of 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

Dated: July 10, 2025 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

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

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

Commerce Investment Company LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-002706 & 

 

 

25-002468 

 

Commerce Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2025 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT TO 

DOCKET NUMBER 25-002468 

 

On May 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal permit it to 

amend the petition filed in this case to include tax year 2025. In the motion, Petitioner 

provides the 2025 tax year values in contention for the following parcels: E-17-08-301-

141, E-17-08-301-142, E-17-08-301-143, E-17-08-301-146, and E-17-08-301-147. 

 

On June 11, 2025, Respondent filed a response to the motion. In the response, 

Respondent disputed Petitioner’s values in contention and provided their own values, as 

established by the Board of Review. Respondent takes no position regarding the 

request to add the 2025 tax year but denies any request for further relief. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion, response, and case file and finds that 

Petitioner timely filed its Motion to Amend, included the necessary information and filing 

fee, and otherwise met all requirements set forth in MCL 205.737 and MCL 205.735a. 

Due to the stage in which this case is at, however, and in the interest of judicial 

efficiency, the 2025 tax year shall be severed from this case and assigned to a new 

docket number. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal for the 2025 tax year is 

SEVERED and ASSIGNED to Docket No. 25-002468. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal for the 2025 tax year will only include the 

parcels referenced in Petitioner’s Motion to Amend. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a petition for the 2025 tax year 

within 21 days of the entry of this order. The petition shall note the docket number

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-002706 & 25-002468 

Page 2 of 2 

 

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2025 tax year and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2025 docket as a “Severed Petition.”1 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Tribunal shall issue a Notice of Docket after receipt 

of the petition for the 2025 tax year. 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in Petitioner being held in default, as 

provided by TTR 237. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By 

 

 

Entered: June 18, 2025 

cs 

 

 

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 Alternatively, the petition may be downloaded from the Tribunal’s website and mailed to the Tribunal via 

United States Postal Service at: Michigan Tax Tribunal, PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. The petition 

may also be delivered to the Tribunal via overnight carrier (UPS, FedEx, or DHL) at: Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, 2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933.

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.