Michigan

Daifuku Airport America Corporation, Petitioner Vs. City Of Boyne City, Respondent

Petitioner: Daifuku Airport America Corporation
Respondent: City Of Boyne City

Case overview

Docket number: 25-002103-TT
Status: Abeyance
CaseType: ET Property
Division: ET
County: Charlevoix
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
10	Granted	PET	8	10/29/2025	Not recorded	Download
9	Order granting Motion.	Not recorded	8	10/29/2025	Not recorded	Download
8	Motion for Abeyance was received.	PET	Not recorded	10/22/2025	$50.00	Download
7	Answer was received	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/22/2025	Not recorded	Download
6	ET Case Info Sheet	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/22/2025	Not recorded	Download
5	Proof of service of petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	09/26/2025	Not recorded	Download
4	Petition has been verified	PET	2	08/12/2025	Not recorded	Download
3	Notice of Docket Number ET	Not recorded	Not recorded	08/12/2025	Not recorded	Download
2	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	05/31/2025	Not recorded	Download
1	ET Case Info Sheet	Not recorded	Not recorded	05/31/2025	$600.00	Download

Documents

Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA 

CORPORATION, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BOYNE CITY, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002103 

Parcel No. 15-051-306-017-00 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

AARON M. FALES (P72864) 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 767-9840 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOINT MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE 

Through their respective counsel, the Parties state as follows for this Motion to hold 

appeal in abeyance: 

1. 

This case involves the 2025 tax year. 

2. 

Petitioner has also filed an appeal challenging its 2025 assessment levied against 

the property which is pending in Docket No. 24-002138. The parties filed and exchanged 

Prehearing Statements and Valuation Disclosures on June 4. 2025 in Docket No. 24-002138 and 

is scheduled for a Prehearing Conference on October 6, 2025. 

3. 

This case has not yet been placed on a Prehearing General Call.

Page 2

As part of a determined effort to try to amicably resolve this case, the parties have

discussed this matter on many occasions.

In hopes of continuing the parties ongoing settlement discussions, the parties seek

to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of the 2024 appeal.

Holding the above captioned case in abeyance pending the resolution of Docket

No. 24-002138 will assist in the efficient administration of justice and benefit the parties and the

Tribunal by preventing unnecessary litigation and requiring the expense and submission of

valuation disclosures in this case.

Given the foregoing, and that it will greatly assist the parties and increase the

likelihood that the case can be settled without a hearing, the parties are asking the Tribunal to

grant this motion, and place this case in abeyance pending the outcome of Docket No. 24-

002138.

Granting this motion is in the interest of the Parties, the Tribunal and justice. If

this case can be amicably resolved it is in everyone’s best interest, and granting this motion will

help the parties in their efforts to resolve this matter. Additionally, granting this motion will

assist in the efficient administration of justice.

Granting this motion is proper under Tax Tribunal Act section 32(c), MCL

205.732(c), which provides in pertinent part, “(t)he tribunal's powers include, but are not limited

to….(c) Granting other relief or issuing writs, orders, or directives that it deems necessary or

appropriate in the process of disposition of a matter over which it may acquire jurisdiction.”

10.

Given all of the foregoing, there is good cause for the Tribunal to grant this

Motion.

Page 3

WHEREFORE, the Parties request that the Tribunal grant this motion by entering an 

Order holding this matter in abeyance pending the outcome of Docket No. 24-002138. 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Petitioner’s 

Authorized Representative 

 

_/s/ Aaron M. Fales (w/ permission)_______ 

Aaron M. Fales 

Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C. 

 

 

Dated: October 22, 2025 

 

 

Signature of Respondent’s 

Authorized Representative 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Laura M. Hallahan 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

 

 

Dated: October 22, 2025

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

25-002103 Abeyance_joint motion.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Daifuku Airport America Corporation,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

MTT Docket No. 25-002103

City Of Boyne City,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO HOLD CASE IN ABEYANCE

On October 22, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion requesting that the Tribunal hold

this case in abeyance pending resolution of MTT Docket No. 24-002138, which is

currently pending before the Tribunal. In the motion, the parties state that (1)

prehearing statements and valuation disclosures have been exchanged in MTT Docket

No. 24-002138; (2) MTT Docket No. 24-002138 was scheduled for a prehearing

conference on October 6, 2025; (3) the instant appeal has not yet been placed on a

Prehearing General Call; and (4) “[i]n hopes of continuing the parties[’] ongoing

settlement discussions, the parties seek to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the

resolution of the 2024 appeal.”

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that placing this

case in abeyance pending resolution of MTT Docket No. 24-002138 will facilitate the

efficient administration of justice, as that resolution may have a direct bearing on the

outcome of the instant appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Tribunal in writing within 28

days of the resolution of MTT Docket No. 24-002138 as to the need for further

proceedings in this matter.

Entered: October 29, 2025

By _____________________________

kac/jcr

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.

Motion to Hold Case in Abeyance.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA 

CORPORATION, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BOYNE CITY, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002103 

Parcel No. 15-051-306-017-00 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

AARON M. FALES (P72864) 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 767-9840 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOINT MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE 

Through their respective counsel, the Parties state as follows for this Motion to hold 

appeal in abeyance: 

1. 

This case involves the 2025 tax year. 

2. 

Petitioner has also filed an appeal challenging its 2025 assessment levied against 

the property which is pending in Docket No. 24-002138. The parties filed and exchanged 

Prehearing Statements and Valuation Disclosures on June 4. 2025 in Docket No. 24-002138 and 

is scheduled for a Prehearing Conference on October 6, 2025. 

3. 

This case has not yet been placed on a Prehearing General Call.

Page 2

As part of a determined effort to try to amicably resolve this case, the parties have

discussed this matter on many occasions.

In hopes of continuing the parties ongoing settlement discussions, the parties seek

to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of the 2024 appeal.

Holding the above captioned case in abeyance pending the resolution of Docket

No. 24-002138 will assist in the efficient administration of justice and benefit the parties and the

Tribunal by preventing unnecessary litigation and requiring the expense and submission of

valuation disclosures in this case.

Given the foregoing, and that it will greatly assist the parties and increase the

likelihood that the case can be settled without a hearing, the parties are asking the Tribunal to

grant this motion, and place this case in abeyance pending the outcome of Docket No. 24-

002138.

Granting this motion is in the interest of the Parties, the Tribunal and justice. If

this case can be amicably resolved it is in everyone’s best interest, and granting this motion will

help the parties in their efforts to resolve this matter. Additionally, granting this motion will

assist in the efficient administration of justice.

Granting this motion is proper under Tax Tribunal Act section 32(c), MCL

205.732(c), which provides in pertinent part, “(t)he tribunal's powers include, but are not limited

to….(c) Granting other relief or issuing writs, orders, or directives that it deems necessary or

appropriate in the process of disposition of a matter over which it may acquire jurisdiction.”

10.

Given all of the foregoing, there is good cause for the Tribunal to grant this

Motion.

Page 3

WHEREFORE, the Parties request that the Tribunal grant this motion by entering an 

Order holding this matter in abeyance pending the outcome of Docket No. 24-002138. 

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Petitioner’s 

Authorized Representative 

 

_/s/ Aaron M. Fales (w/ permission)_______ 

Aaron M. Fales 

Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C. 

 

 

Dated: October 22, 2025 

 

 

Signature of Respondent’s 

Authorized Representative 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 

Laura M. Hallahan 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

 

 

Dated: October 22, 2025

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

Answer_Daifuku 25_FINAL.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA 

CORPORATION,

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BOYNE CITY, 

 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 25-002103 

Parcel No. 15-051-306-017-00 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

AARON M. FALES (P72864) 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C.

Attorney for Petitioner 

330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009

(248) 767-9840

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

ANSWER TO PETITION

AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

 

ANSWER 

Respondent, Boyne City, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent lacks the information necessary and knowledge necessary to respond 

to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

2.

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

Page 2

Respondent admits that subject property is classified as industrial real property.

With respect to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained

therein and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies

Petitioner’s claims have merit or that Petitioner is entitled to relief.

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief of a dispute relative to a value of a

loss but denies any such loss has occurred.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 7, including subparagraphs (a)-(d),

for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or

taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value

permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper

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

constitutional.

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in

the above Paragraphs.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Boyne City, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm

Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award

Respondent its costs and attorney fees.

Page 3

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/Laura M. Hallahan______________

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257)

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

Attorneys for Respondent

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

Dated: October 22, 2025

(248) 731-3089

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent, Boyne City, asserts the following affirmative defenses:

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

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981).

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See

MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974).

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error

of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent or

its agents.

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject

property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the

Page 4

4

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper.

7. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen 

method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 

8. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by 

application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other 

properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 

9. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

10.

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional 

acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 

11.

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

12.

Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 

13.

Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same 

may become known to it during the course of these proceedings.

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan_____________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Date: October 22, 2025 

(248) 731-3089

Page 5

5

PROOF OF MAILING

 

On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition 

and Affirmative Defenses to:

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.

10._Entire_Tribunal_Case_Information_Sheet_Must_Upload_Answer_.3cd6e29f-24b7-4113-86e4-f0b13d5ce761.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-002103

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Boyne City (CHARLEVOIX)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

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

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates, P.C.

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Kelsea M. Melcher

/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.

Daifuku Boyne POS.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA CORPORATION, 

Petitioner, 

Vv. 

MTT Docket # 25-002103 

CITY OF BOYNE, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

GAN 

) 

] 55, 

COUNTY OF OAKLAND) 

> 

P= 

les, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on September 26, 2025 he served a 

nz2r’s Petition on the parties named on the attached list. 

Aaron M. Fales

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

City of Boyne Assessor 

319 N Lake St 

Boyne City, Mi 49712 

City of Boyne Clerk 

319 N Lake St. 

Boyne City, MI 49712 

AND BY FIRST CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

Charlevoix County Equalization 

13513 Division St. 

Charlevoix, MI 43720 

Charlevoix County Clerk 

13513 Division St. 

Charlevoix, MI 49720 

Boyne City Public Schools 

Secretary of the School Board 

321 South Park St. 

Boyne City, MI 49712 

State Treasurer 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

Treasury Building 

430 W. Allegan St. 

Lansing, MI 48922

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

GOVERNOR

LANSING

DIRECTOR

Daifuku Airport America Corporation,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

MTT Docket No.: 25-002103

City Of Boyne City,

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 12, 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

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

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA 

CORPORATION 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket #25- (50 

LL 0 

Parcel No. 15-051-306-017-00 

BOYNE CITY, 

Respondent. 

a 

/ 

PETITION 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA CORPORATION (“Petitioner”), through its 

cfforneys, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: 

1. 

Petitioner's 

principal 

office address 

is 30100 Cabot 

Dr., 

Novi, 

MI 

Petitioner 

is 

a party 

in interest with respect to property taxes on real 

operty fax parcel no. 15-051-306-017-00 ("Petitioner's Property"), at 300 M-75 S, 

Boyne City, MI. 

2 

Respondent, Boyne 

City assesses and 

collects property taxes 

on 

Petitioner's Property. 

7} 

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Property 

to 

be $10,515,896 and assessed 

Petitioner's Property at $12,067,100 

resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the tenative 

equalization factor.

Page 5

Petitioner's 

Property 

is 

classified 

as 

Industrial 

Real 

Property. 

~efiiioner's Property 

is an industrial building. 

Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

roperty v 

erty 

was originally designed to be used for industrial purposes. 

5 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, 

| taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as 

it relates to taxable value, that 

pute relative to the value of a loss. 

there is a dis 

Jue 

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable 

[0] 

mposed 

on 

Petitioner's 

Property, 

and 

the 

taxes 

to 

be 

levied 

and 

cted thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the 

payer for the reasons that: 

pave 

(q) 

axable va 

The 

assessment, 

including 

state 

equalized 

value 

and/or 

lue, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The 

assessment, 

including 

state 

equalized 

value 

and/or 

axable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible 

under 

the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(c) 

The 

assessment, 

including 

taxable 

value 

and/or 

state 

equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash 

alue of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, 

re 

based upon the application of wrong principles; and,

Page 6

[d) 

The 

assessment, 

including 

state 

equalized 

value 

and/or 

taxable 

value, 

and 

the 

mode 

of 

assessment 

adopted 

by 

Respondent, 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner 

its constitutional 

rights 

to 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

WHEREFORE, 

Petitioner requests 

that 

the Tax Tribunal 

enter an 

Order 

reducing 

the 2025 taxable value 

of 

Petitioner's Property from $10,515,894 

to 

$2,500,000, and reducing 

the 

2025 assessed 

and 

state equalized values 

of 

Petitioner'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.

2025 Petition - Boyne.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA 

CORPORATION 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

BOYNE CITY, 

Respondent. 

/

 

 

 

MTT Docket #25- 

Parcel No. 15-051-306-017-00 

 

PETITION 

 

 

DAIFUKU AIRPORT AMERICA CORPORATION (“Petitioner”), through its 

attorneys, Law Office of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: 

 

1. 

Petitioner's principal office address is 30100 Cabot Dr., Novi, MI 

48377. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on real 

property tax parcel no. 15-051-306-017-00 ("Petitioner's Property"), at 300 M-75 S, 

Boyne City, MI. 

 

2. 

Respondent, Boyne City assesses and collects property taxes on 

Petitioner's Property. 

 

3. 

 In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Property to be $10,515,896 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $12,067,100 

resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the tenative 

equalization factor.

Page 2

4. 

Petitioner's Property is classified as Industrial Real Property. 

Petitioner's Property is an industrial building. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was originally designed to be used for industrial purposes. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, 

(c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that 

there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 

 

7. 

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable 

value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the 

taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible 

under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

 

 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state 

equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash 

value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, 

and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and,

Page 3

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order 

reducing the 2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $10,515,896 to 

$2,500,000, and reducing the 2025 assessed and state equalized values of 

Petitioner's Property from $12,067,100 to $2,500,000, and requiring Respondent to 

pay Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: May 30, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

 

By: _________________________ 

 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

 330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

 Birmingham, MI 48009 

 (248) 767-9840

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

ET_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2025-08-12_11-20-35.0000.pdfRead complete document text →