Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Sheridan, Respondent

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

RECEIVED 

SEP 02 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CROCKERY CREEK TURKEY FARMS 

Petitioner, 

v 

SHERIDAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-003130 

PPN: 62-17-29-200-005 

TranInfo:4606 

 26051658-1 

08/29/25 

7 

ft: 

$50.00 

"FOSTER SWIFT 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

Sheridan Charter Township Assessor 

P.O. Box 53 

Fremont, MI 49412 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

On August 28, 2025, I served a copy of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, along 

with a copy of this Proof of Service, upon the Assessor for Sheridan Charter Township by first 

class U.S. mail, postage prepaid. 

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

belief.

Page 2

CHAS VAR 

RESUNCUUDING BLUE'BAGKGHOUNDE:WATERMA 

COMMERCIAL BANK 

{CH 

HA 

SSE 

A 

FOSTERSWIFT ~~ cw 

See 

f 

: 

. 

74355 1724 

FU 

ER SIRT CHEESE & SATU PC) ATTIRRIYS 

: 

HIS. Washington Square « Lansing, 

M1 18933 

. 

) 

GR 

Date: 

08/28/25 

Pay. 

Fifty and 00/100 +++ 

exnsensnan 

TT 

EE YT 

X ¢1f te 

ome 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

7 

2, 

i 

7 

w*O25677® 

RO?2LO355W 025003537

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CROCKERY CREEK TURKEY FARMS 

MOAHR Docket No, 25-003130 

Petitioner, 

PPN: 62-17-29-200-005 

v 

SHERIDAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

Attorneys 

for Petitioner 

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, M1 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner, Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, by and through 

its counsel, pursuant to Tax 

Tribunal Rule 257 and MCR 2.119(F), respectfully moves this Tribunal for reconsideration of its 

Order of Dismissal, dated August 11, 2025 (the *Order™), and in support of such motion states as 

follows: 

Introduction and Standard for Reconsideration 

The property at issue in this appeal is classified as agricultural property and Petitioner is

Page 4

Property 

is classified as agricultural, the applicable filing deadline was July 31, 2025. 

MCL 

205.735a(6). 

On July 31, 2025, Petitioner filed another petition involving issues substantially similar to 

the above-captioned case. See Crockery Creek Turkey Farms v Sheridan Charter Township, MTT 

Docket No. 25-003129. Both petitions were prepared and simultaneously mailed to the Tribunal, 

via the US Postal Service, on July 31, 2025. 

See Exhibit 1, Affidavit. 

Both of the envelopes 

containing the petitions feature a red stamp indicating a mailing date of July 31, 2025. 

Both 

petition envelopes were mailed in the same manner and at the same time! 

On August 11, 2025, the Tribunal issued orders dismissing both of the petitions because 

they “were not filed by July 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices were closed.” 

Following discussions with Tribunal staff involving similar dismissals that were issued in MTT 

Docket Nos. 25-002926 and 25-003076, Petitioner believes that the reason for the dismissal was 

because, while the envelopes contain a red stamp with the July 31, 2025 date, they do not contain 

a black stamp showing the same date. 

In fact, they contain no black stamp at all. 

Petitioner has 

been unable to determine why the envelope containing the petition in the above-captioned case did 

not receive a black stamp on the date that the envelopes were deposited with the US Postal Service. 

Regardless, Petitioner contends that the petition in the above-captioned case was mailed, and 

therefore filed, timely on July 31, 2025. 

In determining whether to reheat or reconsider a Tribunal decision, the Tribunal applies 

the standard for reconsideration contained in MCL 2.119(F). See, e.g., Robert L Schmalzried Trust

Page 5

City of Oak Park, 251 Mich App 345, 349; 650 NW2d 404 (2002). A trial court has “considerable 

discretion in granting reconsideration to correct mistakes, to preserve judicial economy, and to 

minimize costs to the parties.” 

Bakian v National City Bank (In re Moukalled), 269 Mich App 

708, 714; 714 NW2d 400 (2006) (internal citations omitted). 

The 

rule “allows the court 

considerable discretion 

in granting reconsideration 

to correct mistakes, 

to preserve judicial 

economy, and to minimize costs to the parties.” Thus, “if a trial court wants to give a ‘second 

chance’ to a motion 

it has previously [granted], 

it has every right to do so” and the rule “does 

nothing to prevent this exercise of discretion.” Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 659; 617 

NW2d 368 (2000) (internal citations omitted). 

Argument 

Based on MCL 205.735a(6), the filing deadline for property involving agricultural property 

was July 31, 2025. Petitioner filed the Petition in the above-captioned case by first class mail via 

the United States Postal Service. The postage was paid and the Petition was placed in the mail on 

July 31, 2025.2 

Petitioner’s method 

of filing complies with 

the plain language 

of MCL 205.735a. 

Regardless of when the Petition was received by the Tribunal, Petitioner has established that the 

Petition was deposited with the United States Postal Service for mailing and, therefore, the date of 

filing, was timely on July 31,2025. This is no different from a petitioner that files a petition via 

an alternate method that does not receive a postmark stamp or a petitioner that files a petition by 

mail with USPS that does not receive a postmark. For example, petitions delivered via the United

Page 6

period regardless of the actual date of delivery. 

See MCL 205.735a(7)(c). 

Just as with other 

methods of delivery, Petitioner cannot control how the envelope containing the petition is handled 

after it is deposited with the mailing

Page 7

Corp,

Page 8

EX

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 

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003130 

 

Sheridan Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On August 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the 

Order of Dismissal entered in this case on August 11, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner 

states that their method of filing was compliant with MCL 205.735a as postage was paid 

and the filings were deposited with the United States Postal Service (USPS) timely on 

July 31, 2025. Petitioner asserts that utilizing the delivery date rather than the mailing 

date to determine the date of filing violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United 

States and Michigan Constitutions as filings without postmarks are treated differently 

than those with a black postmark stamp. Further, this matter is distinguishable from 

Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp1, as the petition in Arbor Crossings was 

postmarked after the filing date while the subject petition did not receive a postmark. 

 

The timing requirements of MCL 205.735a(6) are jurisdictional.2 In other words, the Tax 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction may only be invoked by a petition that complies with the timing 

requirements of MCL 205.735a(6).3 The powers of the Tax Tribunal are derived from 

statute, and the Tax Tribunal lacks powers in equity, including the ability to consider an 

untimely petition. 4 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the 

Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the 

error was corrected.5 Pursuant to MCL 205.735a(7)(a), “a petition is considered filed on 

or before the expiration of the time period provided in this section or by law if . . . . [it] is 

 

1 Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued October 26, 2017 (Docket No. 334318) (Arbor Crossings). 

2 Electronic Data Sys Corp v Twp of Flint, 253 Mich App 538, 543-544; 656 NW2d 215 (2002). 

3 Id. 

4 Id. See also VanderWerp v Plainfield Charter Twp, 278 Mich App 624, 634; 752 NW2d 479 (2008). 

5 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003130 

Page 2 of 3 

 

postmarked by the [USPS] on or before the expiration of that time period.”6 The 

envelope containing the petition in this case, however, bears a metered postmark, and it 

therefore was not “postmarked” by the USPS as provided by MCL 205.735a(7)(a). This 

determination was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v 

Muskegon Twp,7: 

 

The operative language of the statute is ‘postmarked by the United States 

postal service.’ Thus, the statute unambiguously treats ‘postmarked’ as a 

verb, or in other words, an action undertaken by the USPS. Petitioners rely 

on treating the word as a noun, which would impermissibly rewrite the 

statute to read something in effect, ‘bearing a postmark from the United 

States postal service.’ Although perhaps a subtle distinction, we are not 

permitted to deviate from what the Legislature actually wrote. ‘Postmark,’ 

when used as a verb, means ‘to put a postmark on.’ Merriam–Webster's 

Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed). Consequently, the statute unambiguously 

requires the postmark to have been applied ‘by the United States postal 

service.’ 

 

We conclude that it was not, and petitioners do not appear to seriously 

contend that it was so applied. A postage meter is ‘a device or system of 

components a customer uses to print evidence that postage required for 

mailing has been paid.’ . . . . Postage meters imprint postage under license 

of the USPS . . . and are regulated by the USPS to ensure they are properly 

used . . . . Thus, the petition in this case could not have literally been 

‘postmarked’ by the USPS because it was postmarked by petitioners. At 

best, the petition was postmarked under license of the USPS. The statute 

unambiguously mandates that only petitions that are ‘postmarked by the 

United States postal service’ fall within the provisions of MCL 

205.735a(7)(a).8 

 

Petitioner’s attempt to distinguish this matter from Arbor Crossings is without merit. 

While Petitioner asserts that the lack of a postmark from USPS on the subject filing 

distinguishes the present matter from Arbor Crossings, this does not negate the fact that 

the subject filing and the Arbor Crossings filing both bore meter postmarks the day of 

the filing deadline and were not considered filed as of that date.9 

 

Moreover, Petitioner’s claims regarding violations of the Equal Protection Clauses are 

similarly without merit. MCL 205.735a(7) is clear that mail is considered filed as of the 

date it is postmarked by the USPS. All filings postmarked by the USPS are treated the 

same. As established in Arbor Crossings, metered postmarks are differentiated from 

postmarks made by USPS and warrant different treatment, as required by MCL 

 

6 Id. See also TTR 225(5), which states, in relevant part, that “[a] submission by mail is considered filed 

on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the 

submission.” Id. 

7 Supra, Note 1. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. at 1.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-003130 

Page 3 of 3 

 

205.735a(7). Further, even if Petitioner’s Equal Protection Clauses claim had

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 

RECEIVED 

SEP 02 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CROCKERY CREEK TURKEY FARMS 

Petitioner, 

v 

SHERIDAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-003130 

PPN: 62-17-29-200-005 

TranInfo:4606 

 26051658-1 

08/29/25 

7 

ft: 

$50.00 

"FOSTER SWIFT 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

Sheridan Charter Township Assessor 

P.O. Box 53 

Fremont, MI 49412 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

On August 28, 2025, I served a copy of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, along 

with a copy of this Proof of Service, upon the Assessor for Sheridan Charter Township by first 

class U.S. mail, postage prepaid. 

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

belief.

Page 2

CHAS VAR 

RESUNCUUDING BLUE'BAGKGHOUNDE:WATERMA 

COMMERCIAL BANK 

{CH 

HA 

SSE 

A 

FOSTERSWIFT ~~ cw 

See 

f 

: 

. 

74355 1724 

FU 

ER SIRT CHEESE & SATU PC) ATTIRRIYS 

: 

HIS. Washington Square « Lansing, 

M1 18933 

. 

) 

GR 

Date: 

08/28/25 

Pay. 

Fifty and 00/100 +++ 

exnsensnan 

TT 

EE YT 

X ¢1f te 

ome 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

7 

2, 

i 

7 

w*O25677® 

RO?2LO355W 025003537

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CROCKERY CREEK TURKEY FARMS 

MOAHR Docket No, 25-003130 

Petitioner, 

PPN: 62-17-29-200-005 

v 

SHERIDAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

Attorneys 

for Petitioner 

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, M1 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner, Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, by and through 

its counsel, pursuant to Tax 

Tribunal Rule 257 and MCR 2.119(F), respectfully moves this Tribunal for reconsideration of its 

Order of Dismissal, dated August 11, 2025 (the *Order™), and in support of such motion states as 

follows: 

Introduction and Standard for Reconsideration 

The property at issue in this appeal is classified as agricultural property and Petitioner is

Page 4

Property 

is classified as agricultural, the applicable filing deadline was July 31, 2025. 

MCL 

205.735a(6). 

On July 31, 2025, Petitioner filed another petition involving issues substantially similar to 

the above-captioned case. See Crockery Creek Turkey Farms v Sheridan Charter Township, MTT 

Docket No. 25-003129. Both petitions were prepared and simultaneously mailed to the Tribunal, 

via the US Postal Service, on July 31, 2025. 

See Exhibit 1, Affidavit. 

Both of the envelopes 

containing the petitions feature a red stamp indicating a mailing date of July 31, 2025. 

Both 

petition envelopes were mailed in the same manner and at the same time! 

On August 11, 2025, the Tribunal issued orders dismissing both of the petitions because 

they “were not filed by July 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices were closed.” 

Following discussions with Tribunal staff involving similar dismissals that were issued in MTT 

Docket Nos. 25-002926 and 25-003076, Petitioner believes that the reason for the dismissal was 

because, while the envelopes contain a red stamp with the July 31, 2025 date, they do not contain 

a black stamp showing the same date. 

In fact, they contain no black stamp at all. 

Petitioner has 

been unable to determine why the envelope containing the petition in the above-captioned case did 

not receive a black stamp on the date that the envelopes were deposited with the US Postal Service. 

Regardless, Petitioner contends that the petition in the above-captioned case was mailed, and 

therefore filed, timely on July 31, 2025. 

In determining whether to reheat or reconsider a Tribunal decision, the Tribunal applies 

the standard for reconsideration contained in MCL 2.119(F). See, e.g., Robert L Schmalzried Trust

Page 5

City of Oak Park, 251 Mich App 345, 349; 650 NW2d 404 (2002). A trial court has “considerable 

discretion in granting reconsideration to correct mistakes, to preserve judicial economy, and to 

minimize costs to the parties.” 

Bakian v National City Bank (In re Moukalled), 269 Mich App 

708, 714; 714 NW2d 400 (2006) (internal citations omitted). 

The 

rule “allows the court 

considerable discretion 

in granting reconsideration 

to correct mistakes, 

to preserve judicial 

economy, and to minimize costs to the parties.” Thus, “if a trial court wants to give a ‘second 

chance’ to a motion 

it has previously [granted], 

it has every right to do so” and the rule “does 

nothing to prevent this exercise of discretion.” Kokx v Bylenga, 241 Mich App 655, 659; 617 

NW2d 368 (2000) (internal citations omitted). 

Argument 

Based on MCL 205.735a(6), the filing deadline for property involving agricultural property 

was July 31, 2025. Petitioner filed the Petition in the above-captioned case by first class mail via 

the United States Postal Service. The postage was paid and the Petition was placed in the mail on 

July 31, 2025.2 

Petitioner’s method 

of filing complies with 

the plain language 

of MCL 205.735a. 

Regardless of when the Petition was received by the Tribunal, Petitioner has established that the 

Petition was deposited with the United States Postal Service for mailing and, therefore, the date of 

filing, was timely on July 31,2025. This is no different from a petitioner that files a petition via 

an alternate method that does not receive a postmark stamp or a petitioner that files a petition by 

mail with USPS that does not receive a postmark. For example, petitions delivered via the United

Page 6

period regardless of the actual date of delivery. 

See MCL 205.735a(7)(c). 

Just as with other 

methods of delivery, Petitioner cannot control how the envelope containing the petition is handled 

after it is deposited with the mailing

Page 7

Corp,

Page 8

EX

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

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-003130

Township Of Sheridan,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by July 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003130

Page 2 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 11, 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

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

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-003130

Township Of Sheridan,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by July 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-003130

Page 4 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 11, 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

Page 5

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY

Page 6

MTT Docket No.

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 

AUG 06 2025 

Lansing 

| Southfield | Grand Ra ids 

RGA 

lB 

AL 

FOSTERSWIFT 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH PC || ATTORNEYS 

Lansing 

Southfield 

Grand Rapids 

313 S. Washington Square 

28411 Northwestern Highway — Suite 500 

1700 E. Beltline NE — Suite 200 

Lansing MI 48933 

Southfield MI 48034 

Grand Rapids M1 49525 

Detroit 

Holland 

333 W. Fort Street — Suite 1400 

Detroit MI 48226 

151 Central Avenue — Suite 260 

Holland MI 49423 

Walter S. Foster 

1878-1961 

Richard B. Foster 

1908-1996 

Theodore W. Swift 

1928-2000 

John L. Collins 

1926-2001 

Webb A. Smith 

1938-2025 

Charles A. Janssen 

Charles E. Barbieri 

Scott L. Mandel 

Michael D. Sanders 

Brent A. 

Titus 

Brian G. Goodenough 

Matt G. Hrebee 

Deanna Swisher 

‘Thomas R. Meagher 

Douglas A. Miclock 

Scott A. Chernich 

Paul J. Millenbach 

Dirk H. Beckwith 

Brian J. Renaud 

Lynwood P. VandenBosch 

Lawrence Korolewicz 

James B. Doczema 

Anne M. Seurynck 

Michael D. Homier 

Scott H. Hogan 

Benjamin J. Price 

Michael R. Blum 

Jonathan J. David 

Andrew C. Vredenburg, 

Julie I. Fershtman 

Todd W. Hoppe 

Jennifer B. Van Regenmorter 

‘Thomas R. TerMaat 

Frederick D. Dilley 

David R. Russell 

Joel C. Farrar 

Laura J. Genovich 

Karl W. Butterer, Jr 

Mindi M, Johnson 

Ray H. Littleton, IT 

Anna K. Gibson 

Nicholas M. Oertel 

Alicia W. Birach 

Adam A. Fadly 

Michacl J. Liddane 

Ryan E. Lamb 

Clifford L. Hammond 

Matthew S. Fedor 

Andrea Badalucco 

Stefania Gismondi 

Leslie A. Abdoo 

Julie L. Hamlet 

Michael C. Zahrt 

Mark T. Koerner 

Warren H. Krueger, 111 

Taylor A. Gast 

Thomas K. Dillon 

Robert A. Hamor 

Jacquelyn A. Dupler 

Dora A. Brantley 

James F. Anderton, V 

Sara L. Cunningham 

Michael A. Cassar 

Alexander S. Rusek 

Amanda J. Demovshek 

Brandon M. 

H. Schumacher 

Bryan Cermak 

Kevin J. Roragen 

Allison M. Collins 

Steven J. Tjapkes 

Erica EL. Huddas 

Jennifer L. Montasir 

Mikhail Murshak 

Courtney G. Agnisa 

Rachael Kuilema Klein 

Michael R. Kluck 

Gabrielle C. Lawrence 

Kelly Reed Lucas 

Paula K. Manis 

Michael G. Oliva 

Jeffrey S. Theuer 

Lino A. Taormina 

Jeffrey G. Schultz 

Alaina M. Nelson 

Anthony M. Dalimonte 

Nicholas J. Stock, Il 

Keith T. Brown 

Mallory E. Reader 

Benjamin M. Williams 

Dina D. Kashat 

Danielle N. Romano 

Lindsey M. Mead 

Destiny R. Hughes 

Samantha L. Diamond 

McKenna S. Rivers 

Melanie A. Assad 

Matthew C. Murray 

Mackenzie M. Almassian 

Patrick E. Quinn 

James A. Ryan 

Charles R. Sarchet 

Writer's Direct Phone: 616.726.2244 

Fax: 616.726.6844 

Reply To: Grand Rapids 

Email: JFolkema@fosterswifl.com 

July 31, 2025 

Via First Class Mail 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, Michigan 48909 

Re: 

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms v. Sheridan Charter Township 

PPN: 62-17-29-200-005; 8286 S. Lupin Ave. 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed for filing with the Tribunal, please find one original and one copy of an Entire Tribunal 

Property Tax Petition along with 

a check in the amount of $400.00 to cover the filing fee. 

Once 

processed, please return a file-stamped copy of the Petition to our office using the enclosed, self-addressed, 

postage-paid return envelope. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Respectfully yours, 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS &, SMITH PC 

reg 

Clacton RAF Lona

Page 2

RECEIVED 

AUG 0 6 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON [. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms 

Petitioner(s) 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 

Sheridan Charter Township 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 62-17-29-200-005 

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

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is 

X real ___ personal. 

3. 

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

contiguous? Yes No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- 

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

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

under appeal? 

___ Yes __ 

No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

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

appeal.) 

5. 

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

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

6. 

The property identified above is classified as Agricultural

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

8. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

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

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

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

Protest was made to the Township's March Board of Review. 

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

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

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

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

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

N/A. 

The property or properties at issue are located in Newaygo 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

8286 S. Lupin Ave. 

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

local governmental unit); Sheridan Charter Township 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

11304 Edgewater Dr. Suite A, Allendale, Michigan 49401 

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

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

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

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 3 of 4 

15.

Page 5

MTT

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

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

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-003130

Township Of Sheridan, 

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 11, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 06 2025 

Lansing 

| Southfield | Grand Ra ids 

RGA 

lB 

AL 

FOSTERSWIFT 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH PC || ATTORNEYS 

Lansing 

Southfield 

Grand Rapids 

313 S. Washington Square 

28411 Northwestern Highway — Suite 500 

1700 E. Beltline NE — Suite 200 

Lansing MI 48933 

Southfield MI 48034 

Grand Rapids M1 49525 

Detroit 

Holland 

333 W. Fort Street — Suite 1400 

Detroit MI 48226 

151 Central Avenue — Suite 260 

Holland MI 49423 

Walter S. Foster 

1878-1961 

Richard B. Foster 

1908-1996 

Theodore W. Swift 

1928-2000 

John L. Collins 

1926-2001 

Webb A. Smith 

1938-2025 

Charles A. Janssen 

Charles E. Barbieri 

Scott L. Mandel 

Michael D. Sanders 

Brent A. 

Titus 

Brian G. Goodenough 

Matt G. Hrebee 

Deanna Swisher 

‘Thomas R. Meagher 

Douglas A. Miclock 

Scott A. Chernich 

Paul J. Millenbach 

Dirk H. Beckwith 

Brian J. Renaud 

Lynwood P. VandenBosch 

Lawrence Korolewicz 

James B. Doczema 

Anne M. Seurynck 

Michael D. Homier 

Scott H. Hogan 

Benjamin J. Price 

Michael R. Blum 

Jonathan J. David 

Andrew C. Vredenburg, 

Julie I. Fershtman 

Todd W. Hoppe 

Jennifer B. Van Regenmorter 

‘Thomas R. TerMaat 

Frederick D. Dilley 

David R. Russell 

Joel C. Farrar 

Laura J. Genovich 

Karl W. Butterer, Jr 

Mindi M, Johnson 

Ray H. Littleton, IT 

Anna K. Gibson 

Nicholas M. Oertel 

Alicia W. Birach 

Adam A. Fadly 

Michacl J. Liddane 

Ryan E. Lamb 

Clifford L. Hammond 

Matthew S. Fedor 

Andrea Badalucco 

Stefania Gismondi 

Leslie A. Abdoo 

Julie L. Hamlet 

Michael C. Zahrt 

Mark T. Koerner 

Warren H. Krueger, 111 

Taylor A. Gast 

Thomas K. Dillon 

Robert A. Hamor 

Jacquelyn A. Dupler 

Dora A. Brantley 

James F. Anderton, V 

Sara L. Cunningham 

Michael A. Cassar 

Alexander S. Rusek 

Amanda J. Demovshek 

Brandon M. 

H. Schumacher 

Bryan Cermak 

Kevin J. Roragen 

Allison M. Collins 

Steven J. Tjapkes 

Erica EL. Huddas 

Jennifer L. Montasir 

Mikhail Murshak 

Courtney G. Agnisa 

Rachael Kuilema Klein 

Michael R. Kluck 

Gabrielle C. Lawrence 

Kelly Reed Lucas 

Paula K. Manis 

Michael G. Oliva 

Jeffrey S. Theuer 

Lino A. Taormina 

Jeffrey G. Schultz 

Alaina M. Nelson 

Anthony M. Dalimonte 

Nicholas J. Stock, Il 

Keith T. Brown 

Mallory E. Reader 

Benjamin M. Williams 

Dina D. Kashat 

Danielle N. Romano 

Lindsey M. Mead 

Destiny R. Hughes 

Samantha L. Diamond 

McKenna S. Rivers 

Melanie A. Assad 

Matthew C. Murray 

Mackenzie M. Almassian 

Patrick E. Quinn 

James A. Ryan 

Charles R. Sarchet 

Writer's Direct Phone: 616.726.2244 

Fax: 616.726.6844 

Reply To: Grand Rapids 

Email: JFolkema@fosterswifl.com 

July 31, 2025 

Via First Class Mail 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, Michigan 48909 

Re: 

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms v. Sheridan Charter Township 

PPN: 62-17-29-200-005; 8286 S. Lupin Ave. 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed for filing with the Tribunal, please find one original and one copy of an Entire Tribunal 

Property Tax Petition along with 

a check in the amount of $400.00 to cover the filing fee. 

Once 

processed, please return a file-stamped copy of the Petition to our office using the enclosed, self-addressed, 

postage-paid return envelope. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Respectfully yours, 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS &, SMITH PC 

reg 

Clacton RAF Lona

Page 2

RECEIVED 

AUG 0 6 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON [. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Crockery Creek Turkey Farms 

Petitioner(s) 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 

Sheridan Charter Township 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 62-17-29-200-005 

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

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is 

X real ___ personal. 

3. 

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

contiguous? Yes No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- 

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

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

under appeal? 

___ Yes __ 

No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

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

appeal.) 

5. 

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

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

6. 

The property identified above is classified as Agricultural

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

8. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

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

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

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

Protest was made to the Township's March Board of Review. 

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

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

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

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

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

N/A. 

The property or properties at issue are located in Newaygo 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

8286 S. Lupin Ave. 

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

local governmental unit); Sheridan Charter Township 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

11304 Edgewater Dr. Suite A, Allendale, Michigan 49401 

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

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

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

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 3 of 4 

15.

Page 5

MTT

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