Congregation B'Nai Israel - Beth Yehudah 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 

Congregation B’Nai Israel – Beth Yehudah, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket Nos. 23-001412 

 

 

 

 

& 24-004256 

 

City of Oak Park, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jesse J. Kirchner 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(10) 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(10) 

 

ORDER SEVERING TAX YEARS 2024, 2025, AND 2026 

AND ASSIGNING THEM TO MTT DOCKET NUMBER 24-004256 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

Petitioner, a religious society, sought a property-tax exemption for a parsonage, for tax 

year 2023, under section 7s of the General Property Tax Act. Respondent disallowed 

the exemption on the basis that the parsonage was not exclusively owned by Petitioner 

during the relevant period. By operation of law, the appeal now also includes tax years 

2024, 2025, and 2026. The parties have cross-moved for summary disposition. They 

agree on the material historical facts, but they disagree about the legal meaning of 

those facts. 

 

For the reasons below, the Tribunal grants Petitioner’s motion and denies Respondent’s 

motion and, therefore, renders judgment for Petitioner. 

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 

The property at issue, parcel number 52-25-30-126-021, is a residence located at 

15110 Burton Avenue in Oak Park, a city in Oakland County. Since 2019, the property 

has been subject to the following transfers:

Page 2

MTT Docket Nos. 23-001412 & 24-004256 

Page 2 of 10 

 

• October 31, 2019: conveyed by warranty deed to Abraham 

Bleich, a rabbi, Tobi Bleich, his wife, and Maury Ellenberg.1 

• November 6, 2019: conveyed by quitclaim deed to 

Petitioner.2 

• February 15, 2021: conveyed by warranty deed to Rabbi 

Bleich.3 

• April 19, 2021: conveyed by warranty deed to Petitioner.4 

 

On March 23, 2021, Rabbi Bleich gave a mortgage on the property.5 

 

On July 19, 2021, Rabbi Bleich and Petitioner entered into an employment agreement.6 

Part 5 of the agreement, entitled “Compensation and Benefits,” includes the following 

term: 

 

b. Housing. The parties acknowledge the Congregation and 

the Rabbi entered into a certain Agreement in April of 2020 

relating to the Rabbi’s current residence. The Rabbi shall be 

responsible for any and all expenses arising from or related 

to his current residence including, without limitation, any 

repairs and maintenance costs, mortgage payments, 

insurance premiums and utilities and that any amounts 

thereof paid by the Congregation shall, at Congregation’s 

election, either be reimbursed by the Rabbi or deducted from 

his gross base salary (i.e., subject to any required 

withholdings to the extent not designated as Parsonage). 

 

On January 31, 2023, Petitioner applied for an exemption for the property for the 2023 

tax year, on the basis that the property was being used as a parsonage.7 On February 

6, 2023, Respondent denied the exemption,8 articulating its reasons as follows: 

 

The reason for denial is the missing Agreement between the 

Congregation and the Rabbi that was established in April of 

2020. Also, there is no dissolution information on what 

happens to the parsonage should there be a dissolution of 

the Congregation B’Nai Israel. 

 

 

1. Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition (MSD), docket item 22, exhibit A. Docket items can be 

viewed at the Tribunal’s online docket, available at 

https://taxdocketlookup.apps.lara.state.mi.us/Details.aspx?PK=148982. 

2. Respondent’s MSD, exhibit B. 

3. Respondent’s MSD, exhibit C. 

4. Respondent’s MSD, exhibit E. 

5. Respondent’s MSD, exhibit D. 

6. Petitioner’s MSD, docket item 21, exhibit C, at 5. 

7. Respondent’s MSD, exhibit F. 

8. Respondent’s MSD, exhibit G.

Page 3

MTT Docket Nos. 23-001412 & 24-004256 

Page 3 of 10 

 

We also believe the Congregation only has present interest 

in the property while the Rabbi still retains certain ownership 

rights. 

 

On March 27, 2023, the local board of review determined that Petitioner did not qualify 

for the exemption.9 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

The petition in this matter was filed May 23, 2023, seeking relief for tax year “2023 and 

any subsequent years.” By operation of law, the appeal now includes tax years 2024, 

2025, and 2026.10 Respondent filed its answer on May 31, 2023. On November 17, 

2023, each party moved for summary disposition, Petitioner under MCR 2.116(C)(8) 

and (10) and Respondent under (C)(10). Because the parties’ motions relate to and 

provide evidence for tax year 2023 alone, the motions will be treated as pertaining only 

to that tax year.11 

 

JURISDICTION 

 

The Tribunal has the power to review Respondent’s denial.12 Where an assessment 

concerns property classified as residential real property, the Tribunal’s power to review 

may be invoked only after a protest before the local board of review and the filing of a 

petition by July 31 of the tax year involved.13 Here, Petitioner protested before the 

board of review on March 27, 2023, and filed its petition, which identifies 2023 as the 

tax year at issue, on May 23, 2023. Petitioner, therefore, has properly invoked the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

“A proceeding before the tribunal is original and independent and is considered de 

novo.”14 

 

The Tax Tribunal Rules do not address summary disposition; therefore, MCR 2.116 

governs.15 The parties have each moved for summary disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(10),16 which allows entry of judgment where “there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact.” 

 

9. Petitioner’s MSD, exhibit F. 

10. See MCL 205.737(5)(a). 

11. See Trinity Health-Michigan v Kentwood, __Mich App __ (2026) (Docket No. 367419); slip op

Page 4

MTT

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