Courser Community Center Inc, Petitioner V Township Of Rolland, 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 

Courser Community Center Inc,1 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003423 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Charitable Exemption 

 

Rolland Township, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

 

 

 

ORDER UPDATING DOCKET 

 

Upon agreement by the respective parties at hearing, the docket is updated to reflect 

Courser Community Center Inc as Petitioner in this matter. 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

May 6, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Rolland Courser and Kimberly Smith 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Denise Hall, Assessor 

 

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property is not granted an exemption for the 2024 tax year. 

 

The subject property’s taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, is as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 

Year

TV

2024

$55,650

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner applied to the March Board of Review (BOR) for a charitable exemption under 

MCL 211.7o. The BOR denied Petitioner’s exemption because the property was not 

being used. 

 

 

1 The original petition incorrectly lists Rolland J Courser as Petitioner. At hearing, the parties agreed the 

correct Petitioner is Courser Community Center Inc. and had no objection to the Tribunal updating the 

docket to reflect such.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003423 

Page 2 of 11 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 29, 2024, and Respondent filed its 

answer on October 3, 2024. 

 

The amount of the TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue 

is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s property qualifies for a property tax 

exemption pursuant to MCL 211.7o as a tax-exempt organization. 

 

The petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to an 

exemption.3 

 

MCL 211.7o provides, in pertinent part: 

 

 (1) Real or personal property owned and occupied by a nonprofit 

charitable institution while occupied by that nonprofit charitable 

institution solely for the purposes for which that nonprofit charitable 

institution was incorporated is exempt from the collection of taxes 

under this act. 

 

Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in 

writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled 

“findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise 

statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the 

evidence.”4 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or 

every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence 

contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by 

authority or reasoned opinion.”5 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of 

evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering 

judgment. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contention of TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 

Year

TV

2024

$0 – Exempt under MCL 211.7o

 

2 See MCL 205.762(1). 

3 See ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490; 644 NW2d 47 (2002). 

4 See also MCR 2.517(a). 

5 Id.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003423 

Page 3 of 11 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 8 of the docket 

maintained in this case.6 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that the subject property is tax exempt under MCL 211.7o. 

 

At hearing, Petitioner, Rolland Courser, testified that he purchased the subject property 

with the intent to donate the building back to the local community. The subject property 

is a former school with a gymnasium and the intent was to transform the building into a 

community center. Mr. Courser testified that the former owner of the property was tax-

exempt, and he does not understand why that did not carry over after he purchased the 

property. 

 

Mr. Courser testified that he purchased the property in 2020 for approximately $45,000 

and received a tax exemption that year and the following year. In 2023, Respondent 

revoked the exemption after determining the property was not being used. Mr. Courser 

testified that there are often people working at the property, but there are many 

problems such as asbestos, break-ins which caused extensive damages, and the 

gymnasium roof is leaking. 

 

Kimberly Smith also testified at hearing, stating that the overall project to get the 

building back to satisfactory repair was larger than expected and a substianal amount of 

money needed to be raised for the repairs. Ms. Smith testified that she had no idea how 

many years it was going to take to restore the building. Although there was a lot of initial 

enthusiasm from the community, that enthusiasm slowly faded after break-ins and 

additional costs. Ms. Smith testified that they initially believed it might take 10 or more 

years to come up with the approximately $500,000 that was needed to fully repair and 

transform the building into a community center. Ms. Smith testified that they had 

fundraisers and community events to raise funds, but those events did not occur at the 

subject property. 

 

In the end, there was not enough money readily available to transform the building into 

a community center, and the property was deeded back to Mr. Courser in November 

2024. Ms. Smith testified

Page 4

MT

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 

Courser Community Center Inc,1 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003423 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Charitable Exemption 

 

Rolland Township, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

 

 

 

ORDER UPDATING DOCKET 

 

Upon agreement by the respective parties at hearing, the docket is updated to reflect 

Courser Community Center Inc as Petitioner in this matter. 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

May 6, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Rolland Courser and Kimberly Smith 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Denise Hall, Assessor 

 

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property is not granted an exemption for the 2024 tax year. 

 

The subject property’s taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, is as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 

Year

TV

2024

$55,650

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner applied to the March Board of Review (BOR) for a charitable exemption under 

MCL 211.7o. The BOR denied Petitioner’s exemption because the property was not 

being used. 

 

 

1 The original petition incorrectly lists Rolland J Courser as Petitioner. At hearing, the parties agreed the 

correct Petitioner is Courser Community Center Inc. and had no objection to the Tribunal updating the 

docket to reflect such.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003423 

Page 2 of 11 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 29, 2024, and Respondent filed its 

answer on October 3, 2024. 

 

The amount of the TV in dispute, as set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue 

is within the jurisdictional limits of the Small Claims Division.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s property qualifies for a property tax 

exemption pursuant to MCL 211.7o as a tax-exempt organization. 

 

The petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to an 

exemption.3 

 

MCL 211.7o provides, in pertinent part: 

 

 (1) Real or personal property owned and occupied by a nonprofit 

charitable institution while occupied by that nonprofit charitable 

institution solely for the purposes for which that nonprofit charitable 

institution was incorporated is exempt from the collection of taxes 

under this act. 

 

Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in 

writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled 

“findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise 

statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the 

evidence.”4 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or 

every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence 

contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by 

authority or reasoned opinion.”5 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of 

evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering 

judgment. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contention of TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 12-050-32-041-00 

Year

TV

2024

$0 – Exempt under MCL 211.7o

 

2 See MCL 205.762(1). 

3 See ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490; 644 NW2d 47 (2002). 

4 See also MCR 2.517(a). 

5 Id.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003423 

Page 3 of 11 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 8 of the docket 

maintained in this case.6 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that the subject property is tax exempt under MCL 211.7o. 

 

At hearing, Petitioner, Rolland Courser, testified that he purchased the subject property 

with the intent to donate the building back to the local community. The subject property 

is a former school with a gymnasium and the intent was to transform the building into a 

community center. Mr. Courser testified that the former owner of the property was tax-

exempt, and he does not understand why that did not carry over after he purchased the 

property. 

 

Mr. Courser testified that he purchased the property in 2020 for approximately $45,000 

and received a tax exemption that year and the following year. In 2023, Respondent 

revoked the exemption after determining the property was not being used. Mr. Courser 

testified that there are often people working at the property, but there are many 

problems such as asbestos, break-ins which caused extensive damages, and the 

gymnasium roof is leaking. 

 

Kimberly Smith also testified at hearing, stating that the overall project to get the 

building back to satisfactory repair was larger than expected and a substianal amount of 

money needed to be raised for the repairs. Ms. Smith testified that she had no idea how 

many years it was going to take to restore the building. Although there was a lot of initial 

enthusiasm from the community, that enthusiasm slowly faded after break-ins and 

additional costs. Ms. Smith testified that they initially believed it might take 10 or more 

years to come up with the approximately $500,000 that was needed to fully repair and 

transform the building into a community center. Ms. Smith testified that they had 

fundraisers and community events to raise funds, but those events did not occur at the 

subject property. 

 

In the end, there was not enough money readily available to transform the building into 

a community center, and the property was deeded back to Mr. Courser in November 

2024. Ms. Smith testified

Page 4

MT

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

RECEIV ED 

J 

03423 

5102 (Rev. 04-15) 

APR 

1 8 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

RICK SNYDER 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

NICK A. KHOURI 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

STATE TREASURER 

Bulletin 26 of 2017 

December 12, 2017 

MCL 211.70 Charitable Exemption 

TO: 

Assessors, Equalization Directors and Interested Parties 

FROM: 

State Tax Commission 

SUBJECT: 

MCL 211.70 Charitable Exemption 

This Bulletin provides an overview of the charitable exemption provided in MCL 211.70 and the 

applicable court cases that need to be considered 

in determining whether or not 

a claimant 

is 

eligible to receive the exemption. While this Bulletin provides general information related to the 

charitable exemption, individuals may wish to seek legal counsel if they have questions regarding 

their specific situation. 

A. STATUTORY PROVISION AND THREE-PART TEST 

MCL 211.70 of the General Property Tax Act provides an exemption for “[r]eal or personal 

property owned and occupied by a nonprofit charitable institution while occupied by that 

. 

. 

. 

institution solely for the purposes 

for which 

that 

. 

. 

. 

institution was incorporated.” 

In 

determining whether a taxpayer is qualified for the exemption, a three-part test is applied: 

1. 

Is the real estate owned and occupied by the exemption claimant? 

. 

Is the exemption claimant a nonprofit charitable institution? 

3. 

Is the buildings and other property thereon occupied by the claimant solely for the 

purposes for which the claimant was incorporated? 

If all three prongs of the test are met, then 

a claimant qualifies for 

a charitable institution 

exemption. 

ity 

of Livonia, 

480 Mich 44 

(2008)

Page 2

Bulletin 26 of 2017 

Page 2 

MCL 211.70 Charitable Exemption 

With regard to the third prong, property may be apportioned for purposes of this exemption. 

In 

such instances, the exemption 

is granted only for that portion of the premises used for the 

purpose for which the claimant was incorporated. See McFarlan Home v City of Flint, 105 Mich 

App 728 (1981). 

Apportionment is only permitted in the case of real property and that the 

apportionment must be based on an allocation that grants the exempt status only to the portion 

of the premises which is physically occupied “solely” for the exempt charitable purpose. 

B. WEXFORD FACTORS 

In 

Wexford Medical Group 

v Cadillac, 474 Mich 

192; 713 NW2d 734 (2006) the Michigan 

Supreme Court set forth the following six requirements that must be met for a claimant to be a 

nonprofit charitable institution: 

1. 

The claimant must be a nonprofit institution; 

2. 

The claimant must be organized chiefly, if not solely for charity; 

3. 

The claimant must not offer 

its charity on 

a discriminatory basis by choosing who 

among the group 

it purports to serve deserves its services, but rather must serve any 

person who needs the particular type of charity being offered; 

4. 

The claimant must bring people’s minds or hearts under the influence of education or 

religion; relieve people’s bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint; assist people to 

establish themselves for life; erect or maintain public buildings or works; or otherwise 

lessen the burdens of government; 

5. 

The claimant may charge for its services as long as its charges are not more than what is 

needed for its successful maintenance; and 

6. 

The claimant need not meet any monetary threshold of charity; rather, if the overall 

nature of the claimant is charitable, it is a charitable institution. 

C. BARUCH SUPREME COURT DECISION 

Wexford factor three was recently defined by the Michigan Supreme Court in Baruch SLS, Inc v 

Tittabawassee Twp, 500 Mich 345; 901 NW2d 843 (2017). The Supreme Court created a new 

“reasonable relationship” test to be applied when evaluating factor three; “whether the restrictions 

or conditions the institution imposes on its charity bear a reasonable relationship to a permissible 

charitable goal.” The Supreme Court instructed that this “reasonable relationship” test is to be 

construed “quite broadly to prevent unnecessarily limiting the restrictions a charity may choose to 

place on its services” noting that other states have employed similar tests. The Supreme Court 

further advised “the relationship between the institution’s restriction and its charitable goal need not 

be the most direct or obvious. Any reasonable restriction that is implemented to further a charitable 

goal that passes factor four is acceptable.” The Supreme Court also stated that the analysis of a

Page 3

AY- 00333 

Excerpt from 

Liberty Hill Housing Corp. v. 

City of Livonia 

Michigan Supreme Court 

Further, the Court’s discussion of the “use” of property is not inconsistent with our 

interpretation of the term “occupy.” It is certainly consistent for a charitable institution 

to use property on which it maintains a regular physical presence. Use of property is just 

one part of occupying it. The two terms are not mutually exclusive; “use” is merely 

narrower than “occupy.” 

is consistent wi 

must 

maintai 

VI. CONCLUSION 

property to qualif

Page 4

2f-003423 

Su 

Isabella County, Michigan 

Karen Jackson, Register of Deeds 

Recorded: 12/06/2021 12:44 PM 

OR LIBER 1892 

PAGE 660 

QUIT CLAIM DEED 

The Grantor, The Rolland I. Coutser Revocable Trust, dated December 10, 2002 by 

Rolland J. Courser, Trustee, of PO Box 353 Highland, Michigan , quit-claim(s) any and 

all interest that the grantor may have in the real estate hereafter described to Courser 

Community Center Inc., of PO Box 93, Blanchard, Michigan 

the following described premises situated in Township of Rolland, County of Isabella, 

and State of Michigan: 

Block 32 Village of Blanchard T13N R6W Rolland Township part of parcel #12- 

050-00-250-00 and 

Block 41 Village of Blanchard T13N R6W Rolland Township part of parcel #12- 

050-00-320-00 

e 

conditions must 

e conditions are as 

follows: 

he 

land shall be used to house a community center (in the common sense of the 

A. The land shall b 

ne. 

B. The land

Page 5

Dat

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

RECEIVED 

MTT DOCKET No.: 24-003423 

APR 15 2025 

SUPPORT DOCUMENTS CONTENTS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

1. Facebook membership sheet (2 pages) 

2. Courser Community Center Background (2 pages) 

3. 

Assessors Reply to Appeal (2 page) 

4. 

Reply to Assessors Answer (2 pages) 

5. 

IRS-501C3 TAX CODE 

6. 

Michigan Property Tax Exemption Explanation (5 pages) 

7. 

Photos - showing 

a. Interior work & cleanup 

b. Exterior work & cleanup 

¢. MISCELLANEOUS

Page 2

Save the Blanchard 

Elementary School 

© Public group - 506 members 

QD PDH gr 

ET) 

We 

Share 

Joined 

New people and Pages who join this group will appear here. Learn More 

i Find a member 

- Save the Blanchard Elemen... 

[Wl tite 

Share 

Joined 

Amy Graham 

@ Message 

Owner/Property Manager at Amy's Crafting Corner 

Paula Jean

Page 3

DAES dL VVaTTidiL 

Sandy Bellingar 

Works at New Beginnings Christian Family Fellowship 

Sherry Courser 

Kimberly J. Camp Smith 

Admin 

Top contributor 

Blanchard, Michigan 

Kathie Boyer 

Lansing Community College 

Deb Narducci-Courser 

Librarian at Retired 

Renee Jones-Chapman 

Central Michigan University 

Ervin L. Moore 

Realtor/Broker at Eagle Realty 

JoAnne Camp 

Blanchard High school Michigan 

Tina Murray 

Works at Isabella Bank 

Shane Smith 

& Message 

& Message 

@ Message 

@ Message 

& Message 

& Message 

€ Message 

@ Message 

@ Message 

© Message

Page 4

Courser Community Center (background) 

| first heard about the Facebook site “SAVE THE BLANCHARD 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL” in 2019. 

As time went on-the 

membership grew and grew until it reached over 500 members.(see 

cover sheet) 

| joined and agreed with them that they had a solid 

plan in order to SAVE the school 

| attended in the 1960's. 

October 

25, 2016 The school and four city blocks had been sold to 

a Greg & Brenda Schankin for $12,000 October 25, 2016 and was 

TAX EXEMPT for no reason that anyone could or would talk about. 

They were receiving over $300 per month by CMS Internet for 

allowing CMS to place a tower at the school. 

ary 16, 

2020 

| contacted the leaders of the “Save the School” 

group (Kim Smith. Tina Murray and Renee Chapman) and decided to 

buy the school and donate it to them for their idea of having a 

community center. 

| was able to buy it for $45,000 (plus fees of apx. 

$4,000). |insisted that they set up a 501C3 for tax reasons on my 

attorney’s advice. My closing was on January 16, 2020. 

December 12, 2024 was the actual date that 

| was finally able to 

sign the deed over to “THE COURSER COMMUNITY CENTER”. They 

had been doing a lot of work (see enclosed pictures) in and around 

the building plus: estimates for repairs, getting donations, having 

meetings for residents, many fund raising activities, etc., etc., etc. 

They did contact the assessor about the “tax exempt” property

Page 5

to give them the deed. We also received the Winter 2024 ($2080.88 

paid late $2349.55) tax bill and the Summer tax bill in 2024 ($715.77) 

We also received the Winter tax bill ($2128.87) due before 

| was able 

to get the deed to them. We all thought we were operating under the 

tax exempt status! 

Now here’s the problem — The total amount of our funds (donations, 

can drives, meals, etc.) was $10,248.90. The total property taxes 

were $5862.52. Liability insurance was over $1100.00 per year. 

Electric bills, dumpsters ($400 each x 4) — we cleared out all the 

asbestos as recommended by the hazardous inspection company. 

We also discovered that the Gym roof needed replacement 

($52,000) and the Rubber roof at over $125,000. We sure could have 

used that extra tax money! 

I did find out that Blanchard (the assessor and the Rolland Township 

Board) showed no help. There had been a number of break ins prior 

to my purchase, BUT there were at least five more since 

1 boughtitin 

2020. Kim even caught three high school age kids and the police got 

there in time to catch them, but the Prosecutor’s office declined to 

follow through. They did over $30,000 in damage that time.

Page 6

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

This abandoncd school property was transfered fram Mr Courser to the Courser 

Community Center in 2021 

, with the intention to refurbish the buitding and tun it into a. 

community center. They obtained their 501¢3 and applied for exemption. It was granted 

and continued through the 2022 assessment/tax year. It was assessed on the 2023 roll 

wheu the township saw no movement toward using it for the charitable intentions. The 

2023 non-exempt stats was not appeated. 

Since 2021 the building has failen inte even more disrepair and there has been little or 

10 movement to make it usable, The organization has not been occupying or using the 

building for their chadtable mission and cannot predict whea the situation will change. 

The Township decided to continue assessing the parce? on the 2024 assessment roll for 

this reason. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER 1S APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Patitioncr protest ihe assessment 21 2 Board of Review {BOR)? 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 

110, was the Notice of Assessment properly sont 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? 

I€yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of & clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? 

If'yes, explain. 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

IF 50, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER 1S APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE

Page 7

This abandoned school property was transferred from Mr. Courser to the Courser 

Community Center in 2081 with the intention to refurbish the building and turn it into a 

community center. They obtained their 501C3 and applied for exemption. 

It was 

granted and continued through the 2022 assessment/tax year. 

It was

Page 8

PROPERTY

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

Rolland J Courser,

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No.: 24-003423

Township Of Rolland, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone hearing to be conducted as follows. Hearings are 

generally 30 minutes in length. 

HEARING DATE:

May 6, 2025 

HEARING TIME:

10:30 AM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

68978867 

 

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join 

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You 

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call 

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a 

party or parties in default.

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document.

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento.

এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আইনি দলিল, অনুগ্রহ করে কেউ দলিলটিকে অনুবাদ করুন।

.ةقيثولا مجرتت صخش كيدل ىجري ةماه ةينوناق ةقيثو وه اذه

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang 

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Page 2 of 13

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et 

seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. A party is expected to 

exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses and administrative law judges, which 

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and dressing in appropriate clothing for in-person 

hearings. The hearing may be recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record, 

unless otherwise provided for by the Tribunal.

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing. 

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the 

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness 

testimony.

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to the Tribunal 

and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were previously 

submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the documents are not 

timely submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be 

submitted by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the opposing party by 

mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to 

the opposing party or their authorized representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that 

party or authorized representative, unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other 

documentation identifying a different mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after 

the Notice of Hearing if they were previously submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party.

If a hearing had previously been scheduled in this case and adjourned, and the adjournment order indicates 

that the parties are precluded from submitting any further documentary evidence, no further documentary 

evidence will be accepted even if filed and exchanged, as indicated above.

Inclusion of Subsequent Tax Years: Subsequent tax year assessments are automatically included in a 

valuation appeal once the assessment has been established for that tax year unless the Tribunal grants the 

exclusion of the subsequent tax year. For purposes of administrative efficiency, the Tribunal considers this 

date April 1st. As such, the parties should be prepared to discuss all additional assessments at hearings to be 

conducted on or after April 1st. If the hearing is to be conducted prior to April 1st, taxpayers would be required to 

file a new petition and, if necessary, protest the subsequent tax year assessment at the March Board of 

Review for that tax year. 

MOTIONS/REQUESTS: A motion is a written request filed by a party asking the Tribunal to take certain action. 

The following motions and requests (including subpoenas) may be filed by either party regarding the scheduled 

hearing. Motions and requests may be submitted by mail or through the Tribunal’s “e-filing” system, if available. 

If a motion or request is not granted or the Tribunal has not notified you that it has been granted, you are 

required to attend the hearing.

1. Motion to Adjourn: A party may request the hearing be rescheduled (i.e. adjourned). The motion must be 

submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party at least 28 days before the hearing unless there are 

emergency circumstances. The emergency circumstances must be detailed to justify the granting of what 

would otherwise be considered a late motion. A $25 fee is required for the filing of the motion unless the case 

involves the valuation of property and the property at issue had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% 

at the time the petition was filed, for the tax years at issue, or the sole issue being appealed relates to a

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Page 3 of 13

poverty exemption. If the motion is not granted or the Tribunal

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

R

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

Rolland J Courser,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Township Of Rolland,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the 

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website. 

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small 

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will 

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email 

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of 

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be 

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important 

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy 

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents 

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of 

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the 

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the 

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the 

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this 

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference 

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a 

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with 

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent 

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation. 

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between 

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a 

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a 

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent 

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Page 2 of 7

If you have any questions, please contact the Tribunal by phone at (517) 335-9760 or 

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: December 2, 2024

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 3

Rolland J Courser

165 Underwood

PO Box 353

Highland , MI 48357

Page 4

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

Rolland J Courser,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Township Of Rolland,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the 

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website. 

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small 

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will 

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email 

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of 

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be 

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important 

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy 

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents 

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of 

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the 

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the 

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the 

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this 

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference 

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a 

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with 

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent 

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation. 

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between 

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a 

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a 

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for

Page 5

MTT

Page 6

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

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 24-003423

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government Township Of Rolland (ISABELLA)

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

Denise

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hall

Firm Name (if any)

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

5887 Schafin Drive

City or Town

Weidman

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48893

Telephone Number

989-644-3413

Fax Number

E-mail Address

denise_equitya@yahoo.com

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

This abandoned school property was transferred from Mr Courser to the Courser

Community Center in 2021 , with the intention to refurbish the building and turn it into a

community center. They obtained their 501c3 and applied for exemption. It was granted

and continued through the 2022 assessment/tax year. It was assessed on the 2023 roll

when the township saw no movement toward using it for the charitable intentions. The

2023 non-exempt status was not appealed.

Since 2021 the building has fallen into even more disrepair and there has been little or

no movement to make it usable. The organization has not been occupying or using the

building for their charitable mission and cannot predict when the situation will change.

The Township decided to continue assessing the parcel on the 2024 assessment roll for

this reason.

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)? 

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? 

If yes, explain.

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

If so, what is the issue date?

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE

When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued?

Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped?

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A POVERTY EXEMPTION

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? 

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

List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption:

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? 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended:

Tax Year(s) denied:

2023, 2024 - 2023 not appealed - 2024 appealed to MBOR

List the date the exemption was denied:

1/01/2023

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt?

211.7o

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:

12-050-32-041-00

Classification of Property:

Real 

Commercial

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

62600

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

55650

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

125200

Multiply the True Cash Value by. 5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value.

62600

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/ Denise M Hall

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

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

Non-Property tax disputes. 

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

(e.g. Board of Review Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not 

submit this document, you may be held in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

MI. 

Last Name/Company Name 

Rolland 

J 

Courser 

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

PO Box 353 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Highland 

MI 

48357 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

734-427-9748 

NONE 

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

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

First Name 

ML. 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

| ZIP Code 

TTT 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

JA ¢ IH 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcelsareyou | [] ves* 

[] No* 

appealing? 

*If yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

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

[J True Cash and Taxable Value 

3 Poverty Exemption 

[3 Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

{J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

7} Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

Exemption from Taxation {other than the denial of a 

[4 Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agriculturat Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

This property (The Blanchard Elementary School) was purchased and donated to become the focal community center, 

It was 

registered and recognized by the IRS as a charitable 501C3 tax exempt non profit organization. (copy enclosed) 

The local assessor (Denise Hall) in 2023 determined that the "mission statement” required by the IRS and the state of Michigan was 

not being followed (or used) as she felt it should be based on some research she had done. We disagree! It's been completely 

operated by volunteers and all expenses depend on tax exempt donations. We started with the following problems that MUST be 

completed prior to having any use of the buildings: 

1. needs new roof ($52,000 for the Gym) {$135,000 for the flat roof} 

2. break-ins (all windows broken, toilet fixtures broken) ($40,000) kids were arrested 

3. asbestus inspection - DONE -we paid over $5000 to make sure it was safe 

4. heafing system does not function and needs to be repaired 

We have been working day in and day out on these items along with applying for grants, but there are nol a loi of people that can 

made these large donations and now the township wants us to pay thousands in taxes! while the previous owner paid NOTHING for 

over 8 years or moreli! 

We are and have been using the ball park area for local children to play baseball and soccer. We keep it mowed. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are aj 

ling: 

2024 

Did you protest (Reassessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 

Yes 

=! No 

if Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [rv] March 

|] July 

OJ December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[J Not required to attend 

[i] Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

[m] Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

[} Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Order

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation information use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels, 

Parcel Identification Number: 

12-050-32-041-00 405 FOURTH ST., BLANCHARD, MI 49310 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

[ 

Current Assessed Value {also known as State Equalized Value) as established by tha BOR: 

$62,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$62,600 

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

TAX EXEMPT 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value, 

$0 

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

$0 

Section 8: Classification Information “ony the Mi Dep't of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal* 

Parcel Identification Number: 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one} 

0 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

What do you believe is the property's classification? 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Willy 

(check one) 

If improved property, how is the property currently being used? 

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

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of al least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? 

O Yes 

Ir

Page 5

Ty

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

Rolland J Courser,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Township Of Rolland,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

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

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

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

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

submitted in this case.

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

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

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

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

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 279. Further, an electronic 

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

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: September 11, 2024

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

Rolland J Courser

165 Underwood

PO Box 353

Highland , MI 48357

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Rolland J Courser,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003423

Township Of Rolland,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

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

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

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

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

submitted in this case.

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

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

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

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

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 279. Further, an electronic 

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

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: September 11, 2024

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 provide 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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

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

Non-Property tax disputes. 

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

(e.g. Board of Review Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not 

submit this document, you may be held in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

MI. 

Last Name/Company Name 

Rolland 

J 

Courser 

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

PO Box 353 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Highland 

MI 

48357 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

734-427-9748 

NONE 

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

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

First Name 

ML. 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

| ZIP Code 

TTT 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

JA ¢ IH 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcelsareyou | [] ves* 

[] No* 

appealing? 

*If yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

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

[J True Cash and Taxable Value 

3 Poverty Exemption 

[3 Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

{J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

7} Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

Exemption from Taxation {other than the denial of a 

[4 Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agriculturat Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

This property (The Blanchard Elementary School) was purchased and donated to become the focal community center, 

It was 

registered and recognized by the IRS as a charitable 501C3 tax exempt non profit organization. (copy enclosed) 

The local assessor (Denise Hall) in 2023 determined that the "mission statement” required by the IRS and the state of Michigan was 

not being followed (or used) as she felt it should be based on some research she had done. We disagree! It's been completely 

operated by volunteers and all expenses depend on tax exempt donations. We started with the following problems that MUST be 

completed prior to having any use of the buildings: 

1. needs new roof ($52,000 for the Gym) {$135,000 for the flat roof} 

2. break-ins (all windows broken, toilet fixtures broken) ($40,000) kids were arrested 

3. asbestus inspection - DONE -we paid over $5000 to make sure it was safe 

4. heafing system does not function and needs to be repaired 

We have been working day in and day out on these items along with applying for grants, but there are nol a loi of people that can 

made these large donations and now the township wants us to pay thousands in taxes! while the previous owner paid NOTHING for 

over 8 years or moreli! 

We are and have been using the ball park area for local children to play baseball and soccer. We keep it mowed. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are aj 

ling: 

2024 

Did you protest (Reassessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 

Yes 

=! No 

if Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [rv] March 

|] July 

OJ December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[J Not required to attend 

[i] Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

[m] Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

[} Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Order

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation information use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels, 

Parcel Identification Number: 

12-050-32-041-00 405 FOURTH ST., BLANCHARD, MI 49310 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

[ 

Current Assessed Value {also known as State Equalized Value) as established by tha BOR: 

$62,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$62,600 

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

TAX EXEMPT 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value, 

$0 

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

$0 

Section 8: Classification Information “ony the Mi Dep't of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal* 

Parcel Identification Number: 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one} 

0 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

What do you believe is the property's classification? 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Willy 

(check one) 

If improved property, how is the property currently being used? 

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

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of al least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? 

O Yes 

Ir

Page 5

Ty

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.