Record Finder / 25-002144-TT
Michigan
Consumers Credit Union, Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing, Respondent
- Petitioner
- Consumers Credit Union
- Respondent
- City Of Lansing
Case overview
- Docket number
- 25-002144-TT
- Status
- Disposed
- CaseType
- ET Property
- Division
- ET
- County
- Ingham
- Judge
- No judge assigned
Docket history
| Line # | Subject | Filer | Line Ref | Enter Date/Post Mark | Fee | Related Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Consent Judgment | Not recorded | 8 | 10/08/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 9 | Granted | PET | 8 | 10/08/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 8 | A Stipulation has been received. | PET | Not recorded | 10/07/2025 | $50.00 | Download |
| 7 | Amended Answer | Not recorded | Not recorded | 10/07/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 6 | Answer was received | Not recorded | Not recorded | 10/07/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 5 | Proof of service of petition was received. | PET | Not recorded | 09/16/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 4 | Petition has been verified | PET | 2 | 08/13/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 3 | Notice of Docket Number ET | Not recorded | Not recorded | 08/13/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 2 | A petition was received. | PET | Not recorded | 06/02/2025 | Not recorded | Download |
| 1 | ET Case Info Sheet | Not recorded | Not recorded | 06/02/2025 | $600.00 | Download |
Documents
25-002144 Consent Judgment.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
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 Consumers Credit Union, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 25-002144 City of Lansing, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell 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%, 1 See MCL 211.27a. 2 See MCL 205.755.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002144 Page 2 of 2 (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, 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%, and (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%. 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: October 8, 2025 gc 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.
Consumers Credit Union - Lansing 2025 Stipulation 25-002144 Fully Executed 10-6-2025.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union, MTT Docket No. 25-002144-TT Petitioner, Parcel No(s). 33-01-05-10-378-010 v City of Lansing, Respondent. / Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO Derik Edwards City Assessor DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Assessing Department Representatives for Petitioner City of Lansing 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Representative for Respondent Indianapolis, IN 46240 124 W Michigan Ave, 3" Floor (317) 596-3260, ext. 2404 Lansing, MI 48933 (917) 488-7825 (517) 483-7624 msilvey@dmainc.com Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov dedwards@dmainc.com STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT IN THE FULL TRIBUNAL 1. This case is pending in the Entire Tribunal. 2. The subject property is located in Ingham County. 3. The values for the property at issue in this appeal as established by Respondents Board of Review are:
Page 2
4. The values for the property at issue in this appeal as agreed upon by the parties for settlement purposes are: Tax Parcel(s) True Cash Assessed Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 33-01-05-10-378-010 $2,911,670 $1,455,835 $1,455,835 5. This stipulation addresses the 2025 tax year only. 6. Refunds (as warranted) should be made payable to “Consumers Credit Union” and mailed to the attention of: Consumers Credit Union c/o Mikki Silvey 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Respectfully submitted, Micke, (0 & @) Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. City Assessor Representatives for Petitioner Assessing Department October 6, 2025 City of Lansing Representative for Respondent October _/ , 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.
Consumers Credit Union - Lansing 2025 Stipulation 25-002144 Fully Executed 10-6-2025.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union, MTT Docket No. 25-002144-TT Petitioner, Parcel No(s). 33-01-05-10-378-010 v City of Lansing, Respondent. / Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO Derik Edwards City Assessor DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Assessing Department Representatives for Petitioner City of Lansing 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Representative for Respondent Indianapolis, IN 46240 124 W Michigan Ave, 3" Floor (317) 596-3260, ext. 2404 Lansing, MI 48933 (917) 488-7825 (517) 483-7624 msilvey@dmainc.com Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov dedwards@dmainc.com STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT IN THE FULL TRIBUNAL 1. This case is pending in the Entire Tribunal. 2. The subject property is located in Ingham County. 3. The values for the property at issue in this appeal as established by Respondents Board of Review are:
Page 2
4. The values for the property at issue in this appeal as agreed upon by the parties for settlement purposes are: Tax Parcel(s) True Cash Assessed Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 33-01-05-10-378-010 $2,911,670 $1,455,835 $1,455,835 5. This stipulation addresses the 2025 tax year only. 6. Refunds (as warranted) should be made payable to “Consumers Credit Union” and mailed to the attention of: Consumers Credit Union c/o Mikki Silvey 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Respectfully submitted, Micke, (0 & @) Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. City Assessor Representatives for Petitioner Assessing Department October 6, 2025 City of Lansing Representative for Respondent October _/ , 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.
Answer with POS 25-002144.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Consumers Credit Union , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) M MTT Docket No.25-002144 City of Lansing i Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO states that on 10/7/2025 he/she [Name of person serving/mailing petition] [date of service] served a copy of the Answer relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] MTT PO Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909 AND Michelle Silvey 9229 Delegates Row, STE 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Jennifer Czeiszperger [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CONSUMERS CREDIT UNION Petitioner \Y MOAHR Docket 25-002144 Parcel No. 33-01-05-10-378-010 CITY OF LANSING, Respondent Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO City Assessor 124 W. Michigan Avenue 3rd Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4136 Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RESPONDENT, the City of Lansing, through its Assessor, Jennifer Czeiszperger, hereby responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: —_ . Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
Page 3
MTT Docket # 25-002144 8. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9 Respondent neither admits not denies the allegation in Paragraph 10. The mailing address on record is P.O. Box 525. Oshtemo, MI 49077. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2025 tax year. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 12. The 2025 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 33-01-05-10-378-010 $4,033,200 $2,016,600 $1,639,933 Respondent contends that the 2025 values for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 33-01-05-10-378-010 | $4,033,200 $2,016,600 $1,639,933 The 2025 values in dispute for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value | Taxable Value 33-01-05-10-378-010 $0 $0 $0 16. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 for the reason that it is untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional.
Page 4
MTT Docket # 25-002144 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the following affirmative defenses: A. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s claim for relief. B. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). C. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). B. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or its agents. C. Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. D. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. E. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s
Page 5
MTT Docket # 25-002144 G. Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. H. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. L Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. J. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. K. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice
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.
05._Property_Tax_Appeal_Answer_Form_Valuation_Poverty_Classification.212fa691-7975-4bf8-907f-6ba5b7130933.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-002144 Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information Filer Type: Local Unit of Government City Of Lansing (INGHAM) First Name M.I. Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) City or Town State Michigan ZIP Code Telephone Number Fax Number E-mail Address Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Jennifer M.I. Last Name Czeiszperger Firm Name (if any) Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 124 West Michigan Ave 3rd Fl City or Town Lansing State Michigan ZIP Code 48933 Telephone Number 517-483-4136 Fax Number E-mail Address jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov Section 3: Subject Property Information Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? No Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? If not, list which parcels adjoin one another. N/A Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 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, Notice of Uncapping, or Assessment Change Notice) with this Small Claims Answer, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default.
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR See Attached Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? No If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? *Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? If yes, cite the Board’s authority. Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? No If yes, explain. Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? If so, what is the issue date? N/A IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? N/A Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? N/A IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A POVERTY EXEMPTION Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? No If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: N/A IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS Did Petitioner request the exemption at the BOR? No If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended:
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Tax Year(s) denied: List the date the exemption was denied: What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY What do you believe the classification should be: Section 6: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. Parcel Identification Number: 33-01-05-10-378-010 Classification of Property: Real Commercial Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 2016600 Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 1639933 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 2911670 Multiply the True Cash Value by. 5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 1455835 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: /s/ Jennifer Czeiszperger
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.
Consumers Credit Union - City of Lansing 25-002144-TT.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union. Petitioner, City of Lansing Respondent. MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002144-TT PROOF OF SERVICE Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 16% day of September 2025 she served a copy of the Petition upon the following persons by placing same in an envelope properly addressed to each via USPS first class thereon: Barb Byrum Ingham County Clerk 341 S. Jefferson Mason, MI 48854 Rosemary Anger Ingham County Equalization Director 315 S. Jefferson, 3" Floor Mason, MI 48854 Lansing Public School District Dr. Deyanira Nevarez Martinez, School Board Secretary 519 West Kalamazoo Street Lansing, MI 48933 Michigan State Treasurer Department of Treasury Treasury Building 430 West Allegan Lansing, MI 48922 Mica, ((@ Sos Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Authorized Agent
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union. Petitioner, MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002144-TT ) ) ) City of Lansing, ) ) ) ) Respondent. PROOF OF SERVICE Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 16%" day of September 2025 she served a copy of the Petition upon the following persons by placing same in an envelope properly addressed to each via certified mail thereon: Jennifer Czeiszperger City of Lansing Assessor 124 W Michigan Avenue, 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48933 Chris Swope City of Lansing Clerk 124 W Michigan Avenue, Sth Floor Lansing, MI 48933 Mics (0 ve) Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Authorized Agent
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union , MTT Docket No. 25-002144 -TT Petitioner, v City of Lansing ; Respondent. Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 689-6467-ofc (917) 488-7825-mobile msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: 33-01-05-10-378-010 2. The property identified above is real 3 3. Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 4. Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the subject of this appeal.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 25-002144 TT Page 2 of 3 5: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December Board of Review as a protest was not required. The property or properties at issue are in Ingham County. The property or properties’ address is: 6927 S Cedar St, Lansing, MI 48911 The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: City of Lansing Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 7200 Elm Valley Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49009 This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values and uniformity. The tax year at issue is: 2025. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2025 Board of Review are: Tax True Cash Assessed Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $4,033,200 $2,016,600 $1,639,933 Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $1,700,000 $850,000 $850,000 The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $2,333,200 $1,166,600 $789,933
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 25-002144 TT Page 3 of 3 16. The 2025 assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and collected are invalid because: (a) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case and enter an order reducing the 2025 true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Mick (0 re) Dated: May 31 , 2025 By: Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Petitioner's Representative
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.
Consumers Credit Union - City of Lansing.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union R MTT Docket No. 25- Petitioner, v City of Lansing R Respondent. / Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 689-6467-ofc (917) 488-7825-mobile msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: 33-01-05-10-378-010 2. The property identified above is real . 3. Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 4. Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the subject of this appeal.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25- -TT Page 2 of 3 S. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December Board of Review as a protest was not required. The property or properties at issue are in Ingham County. The property or properties’ address is: 6927 S Cedar St, Lansing, MI 48911 The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: City of Lansing Petitioners legal residence or principal office address is: 7200 Elm Valley Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49009 This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values and uniformity. The tax year at issue is: 2025. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2025 Board of Review are: Tax True Cash Assessed Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $4,033,200 $2,016,600 $1,639,933 Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $1,700,000 $850,000 $850,000 The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $2,333,200 $1,166,600 $789,933
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 2-___BBB___-TT Page 3 of 3 The 202assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and collected are invalid because: D The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; E The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; F The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and G The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case and enter an order reducing the 202true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Dated: May ___, 202 By: ______________________________ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Petitioner’s Representative 31
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.
ET_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2025-08-13_15-29-39.0000.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
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 Consumers Credit Union, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No.: 25-002144 City Of Lansing, 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 13, 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.
Consumers Credit Union - City of Lansing.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Consumers Credit Union R MTT Docket No. 25- Petitioner, v City of Lansing R Respondent. / Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 689-6467-ofc (917) 488-7825-mobile msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: 33-01-05-10-378-010 2. The property identified above is real . 3. Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 4. Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the subject of this appeal.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25- -TT Page 2 of 3 S. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December Board of Review as a protest was not required. The property or properties at issue are in Ingham County. The property or properties’ address is: 6927 S Cedar St, Lansing, MI 48911 The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: City of Lansing Petitioners legal residence or principal office address is: 7200 Elm Valley Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49009 This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values and uniformity. The tax year at issue is: 2025. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2025 Board of Review are: Tax True Cash Assessed Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $4,033,200 $2,016,600 $1,639,933 Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $1,700,000 $850,000 $850,000 The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2025 $2,333,200 $1,166,600 $789,933
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 2-___BBB___-TT Page 3 of 3 The 202assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and collected are invalid because: D The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; E The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; F The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and G The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case and enter an order reducing the 202true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Dated: May ___, 202 By: ______________________________ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Petitioner’s Representative 31
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.
09._Entire_Tribunal_Case_Information_Sheet_Must_Upload_Petition_.3ee4b283-bcc0-49ed-9d25-f54bab3db171.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING ORLENE HAWKS DIRECTOR Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner MOAHR DOCKET NO. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer type: Organization First Name/Company Name M.I. Last Name Consumers Credit Union Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 7200 Elm Valley Drive City or Town Kalamazoo State Michigan ZIP Code 49009 Telephone Number 917-488-7825 Fax Number E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) msilvey@dmainc.com Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Michelle (Mikki) M.I. M Last Name Silvey Firm Name (if any) Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 9229 Delegates Row, Ste 375 City or Town Indianapolis State Indiana ZIP Code 46240 Telephone Number 317-596-3260 Fax Number E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) msilvey@dmainc.com Section 5: Issue Please designate one: Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 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] 6927 S Cedar St Lansing Michigan 48911 Taxing Authority (City or Township) City Of Lansing (INGHAM) County Ingham 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) True Cash and Taxable Values Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal Parcel Number: 33-01-05-10-378-010 Classification of Property: Real Commercial Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review: 2016600 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 1639933 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 1700000 Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 850000 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: Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: What do you believe is the property’s classification?
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? If improved property, for what use was the property designed? 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/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey
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.