Douglas Fairbanks, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Bear Lake, 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 

Douglas Fairbanks, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

 

Bear Lake Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Order of Dismissal and Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ)1 on January 16, 2026. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties 

have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or 

by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do 

not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ).” 

 

Neither party has filed exceptions to the POJ. 

 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the testimony and evidence submitted 

by the parties and made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. With regard to 

Petitioner’s true cash value claims, the ALJ’s determination that Petitioner did not meet 

their burden of going forward with the evidence is supported by the record in this case 

and applicable statutory authority. Furthermore, the ALJ considered Petitioner’s claims 

related to the subject property’s taxable value (TV) and as noted above, made specific 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Tribunal finds that the ALJ’s TV 

determination is supported by the testimony and evidence and applicable statutory and 

case law. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final decision in this 

case.2 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a 

result: 

 

 

1 Upon review, the Tribunal has determined that the POJ incorrectly identified the POJ as including a 

Proposed Order of Dismissal. However, this typographical error indicating a Proposed Order of Dismissal 

rather than a Proposed Order of Partial Dismissal was de minimis in nature as it had no impact on the 

ALJ’s determination that Petitioner’s valuation claims should be partially dismissed. Specifically, the POJ 

expressly stated that “IT IS ORDERED that this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED with respect to 

Petitioner’s valuation claims.” Therefore, the Final Opinion and Judgment is being corrected to reflect the 

intent to partially dismiss Petitioner’s valuation claims. 

2 See MCL 205.726.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

Page 2 of 3 

 

The property’s TV, as established by the Board of Review for the tax year at issue, is: 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TV

2024

$29,949

2025

$30,877

 

The property’s final TV, as determined by the Tribunal for the tax year at issue, is: 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TV

2024

$24,749

2025

$25,516

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED with respect to 

Petitioner’s valuation claims. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s taxable values as provided in this Final Opinion and 

Judgment within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the 

processes of equalization.3 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given 

year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be 

corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 

days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall 

include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty 

and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the 

amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by 

the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to 

the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A 

sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any 

time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 

Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2020, through 

June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 

2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the 

rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 

8.25%, (v) after December

Page 3

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 

Douglas Fairbanks, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

 

Bear Lake Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Order of Dismissal and Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ)1 on January 16, 2026. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties 

have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or 

by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do 

not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ).” 

 

Neither party has filed exceptions to the POJ. 

 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the testimony and evidence submitted 

by the parties and made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. With regard to 

Petitioner’s true cash value claims, the ALJ’s determination that Petitioner did not meet 

their burden of going forward with the evidence is supported by the record in this case 

and applicable statutory authority. Furthermore, the ALJ considered Petitioner’s claims 

related to the subject property’s taxable value (TV) and as noted above, made specific 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Tribunal finds that the ALJ’s TV 

determination is supported by the testimony and evidence and applicable statutory and 

case law. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final decision in this 

case.2 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a 

result: 

 

 

1 Upon review, the Tribunal has determined that the POJ incorrectly identified the POJ as including a 

Proposed Order of Dismissal. However, this typographical error indicating a Proposed Order of Dismissal 

rather than a Proposed Order of Partial Dismissal was de minimis in nature as it had no impact on the 

ALJ’s determination that Petitioner’s valuation claims should be partially dismissed. Specifically, the POJ 

expressly stated that “IT IS ORDERED that this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED with respect to 

Petitioner’s valuation claims.” Therefore, the Final Opinion and Judgment is being corrected to reflect the 

intent to partially dismiss Petitioner’s valuation claims. 

2 See MCL 205.726.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

Page 2 of 3 

 

The property’s TV, as established by the Board of Review for the tax year at issue, is: 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TV

2024

$29,949

2025

$30,877

 

The property’s final TV, as determined by the Tribunal for the tax year at issue, is: 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TV

2024

$24,749

2025

$25,516

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED with respect to 

Petitioner’s valuation claims. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s taxable values as provided in this Final Opinion and 

Judgment within 20 days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment, subject to the 

processes of equalization.3 To the extent that the final level of assessment for a given 

year has not yet been determined and published, the assessment rolls shall be 

corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 

days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall 

include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty 

and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the 

amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by 

the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to 

the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A 

sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any 

time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 

Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2020, through 

June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 

2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the 

rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 

8.25%, (v) after December

Page 3

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 

Douglas Fairbanks, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

 

Bear Lake Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

January 6, 2026 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Doug Fairbanks, Douglas Fairbanks 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Sally Murray 

 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property’s taxable value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TV

2024

$24,749

2025

$25,516

 

This case shall be dismissed with respect to Petitioner’s claims regarding true cash 

value (TCV) and state equalized value (SEV). 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 

March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 25, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 27, 2024

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

Page 2 of 10 

 

The amount of the SEV or 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.1 Further, the 

property’s assessment for the subsequent tax year is included in this proceeding.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value 

(TCV). 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, physical losses to 

the property, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and physical additions to the 

property, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed). 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979).

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

Page 3 of 10 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$130,000

$65,732

$24,749.55

2025

Not provided

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 of the docket maintained in 

this case.10 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioner contends that the assessment 

is not accurate with respect to the cement threshold to the cabin, the five-board, split-rail 

fence, two eight-by-16-foot carports, and the wood-framed pump house, as detailed 

therein. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the additions to the record card 

resulted in four inaccuracies to TV. The threshold to the cabin, as shown in Exhibit A, is 

a small step. The concrete surrounding the step is covered in moss and plants. It was 

part of the original construction in the late 1930s, and it has not been repaired or 

modified since. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 1990. There was a popup 

for that, as well as two prior ones, and there should not be an additional new charge on 

the property record card. Further, the concrete is beyond its life. 

 

Petitioner contends that the fence was constructed in 1992 to replace a wire electric 

fence. It is on the card

Page 4

M

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 

Douglas Fairbanks, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

 

Bear Lake Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

January 6, 2026 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Doug Fairbanks, Douglas Fairbanks 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Sally Murray 

 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property’s taxable value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TV

2024

$24,749

2025

$25,516

 

This case shall be dismissed with respect to Petitioner’s claims regarding true cash 

value (TCV) and state equalized value (SEV). 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 

March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 25, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 27, 2024

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

Page 2 of 10 

 

The amount of the SEV or 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.1 Further, the 

property’s assessment for the subsequent tax year is included in this proceeding.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value 

(TCV). 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, physical losses to 

the property, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and physical additions to the 

property, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed). 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979).

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003736 

Page 3 of 10 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 40001-001-048-10 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$130,000

$65,732

$24,749.55

2025

Not provided

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 of the docket maintained in 

this case.10 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioner contends that the assessment 

is not accurate with respect to the cement threshold to the cabin, the five-board, split-rail 

fence, two eight-by-16-foot carports, and the wood-framed pump house, as detailed 

therein. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that the additions to the record card 

resulted in four inaccuracies to TV. The threshold to the cabin, as shown in Exhibit A, is 

a small step. The concrete surrounding the step is covered in moss and plants. It was 

part of the original construction in the late 1930s, and it has not been repaired or 

modified since. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 1990. There was a popup 

for that, as well as two prior ones, and there should not be an additional new charge on 

the property record card. Further, the concrete is beyond its life. 

 

Petitioner contends that the fence was constructed in 1992 to replace a wire electric 

fence. It is on the card

Page 4

M

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

Douglas Fairbanks,

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No.: 24-003736

Township Of Bear Lake, 

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:

January 6, 2026 

HEARING TIME:

11:30 AM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

425208668 

 

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. 24-003736

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. Parties are 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 choosing a quiet, private location to 

participate in the hearing to limit distractions and ensure minimal background noise. 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 both 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 both the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be 

excluded. Documents may be submitted to the Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s electronic filing (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 in this case.

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 valuation appeals once the assessment has been established for that tax year. For purposes of 

administrative efficiency, the Tribunal considers this date April 1st. As such, the parties should submit 

documentation and be prepared to discuss subsequent tax year assessments at hearings to be conducted on 

or after April 1st in a subsequent year. If the hearing is to be conducted prior to April 1st in a subsequent year, 

taxpayers are required to file a new petition and, if necessary, protest the subsequent tax year assessment at 

the March Board of Review for that year. 

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

Page 3

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

Douglas Fairbanks,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736

Township Of Bear Lake,

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. 24-003736

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 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 3

Douglas Fairbanks

12695 Case Rd

Clinton , MI 49236

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

Douglas Fairbanks,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736

Township Of Bear Lake,

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

Page 5

M

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 

 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

___________________________________ states that on ___________________ he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

 

 

[date of service] 

 

served a copy of the ___________________ relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

 

________________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________________ 

 

________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

[Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] 

 

_________________________________________ 

[Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy] 

 

 

 

 

Douglas Fairbanks

24-003736

Bear Lake Township

Sally Murray

10/27/2024

Answer

Douglas Fairbanks

12695 Case Rd

Clinton, MI 49236

Sally Murray

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

| 

| 

03/15/2024 

04:54 

PM 

2024 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION 

FROM 

SALLY MURRAY, MAAO 

BEAR LAKE TWP ASSESSOR 

810 COTTAGEVIEW DR STE 301] 

TRAVERSE CITY, MI 49684 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parce! Code required. Property address 

and legal description optional 

): 

40001-001-048-10 

CAMP ARROWHEAD R 

PARCEL A: THAT PART OF THE NE 1/4 OF SW 1/4 SEC 

1 T26N 

EN 

BURY M& DOUGLAS 

RSW DESC AS COM AT THE § 1/4 COR OF SD SEC 

1 THN 00 

a A 

RY 6 

DEG 5323" W ALG N/S 1/4 L1 OF SEC 1320.77 FT TO § 1/8 LT 

OF SD SEC TH § 89 DEG 49°09" W ALG SD 1/8 LI 336 FT TO 

POB TH CONT W ALG SD 1/8 L1 125 FT TH N 00 DEG 4823" W 

831.18 FT TO TRAVERSE LI ALG LEFT BANK OF MANISTEE 

RIVER TH 8 63 DEG 00' 33" E ALG SD TRAVERSE LI 141.29 

FT TH S 00 DEG 48' 23" E 766.66 FT TO POB CONT 2.29 

ACRES M/L 

THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED 

40! 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review, The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary 

to compute your assessment and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 40001-001-048-10 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments 

AV/TV FROM 105,200/31,149 TO 104,000/29,949, BOR EXAMINED THE STATE TAX COMMISSION'S ASSESSOR MANUAL (UIP 13 P7). RE-PRICED 

CARPORTS TO 'SUN-SHELTER'. 

2024 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

105,200 

2024 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

104,000 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

2024 ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

31,149 

2024 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

29,949 

2024 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 

0.0000 

Please feel free to contact the assessor at the address listed above or call if you have any questions, 

“Effective March 1, 2013, the Tribunal is no longer able to accept Small Claims letter appeals. Rather, you are required to file a petition to 

initiate 

a new Small Claims appeal. Petition forms are available on this website.” 

http://www.michigan.gov/taxtrib/0,4677,7-187-38254---,00. html

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. 24-003736

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government Township Of Bear Lake (KALKASKA)

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

Sally

M.I.

Ann

Last Name

Murray

Firm Name (if any)

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

810 Cottageview Dr Ste 301

City or Town

Traverse City

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49684

Telephone Number

231-499-7682

Fax Number

E-mail Address

SallyAnnMurray8120@gmail.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

The 2024 taxable value was increased due to the following observed improvements: 641 lineal feet of fencing and two sun-shelters, each being 10x16.

The MBOR adjusted the headlee new&additions from 6,400 to 5,200 (as the sun-shelters were originally priced as carports and the MBOR considered sun shelter 

more suitable).

Four specific points were addressed by petitioner:

1. Cement threshold to cabin

There is 72 square feet of concrete at the smaller cabin. It is 4'x18'. While moss covered due to shade from sun, it was observed intact and was included in the 

assessment at a depreciated rate.

2. Fencing is assessable real property, as evidenced by their inclusion in the Michigan Assessor's Manual. There is no reliance upon 'Zillow' in Michigan's General 

Property Tax Act (Act 206 of 1893). Inclusion of fencing in a property record card is appropriate. Petitioner seeks to 'cherry pick' erroneous record cards and 

practices as a means to support their argument. No documentation provided to support "conversations" with Kalkaksa County Equalization Office.

3. Two 10 x 16 sun shelters exist and should be included in the property record card/assessment.

4. The wood framed pump house exists and should be included in the property record card/assessment. The pump house was not considered to be a brand-new 

improvement.

Nothing in statute supports the removal of said items from the property record card and/or assessment.

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)? Yes

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March

If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? March*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer.

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? 

If yes, cite the Board’s authority.

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? No

If yes, explain.

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

If so, what is the issue date?

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?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 

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:

List the date the exemption was denied:

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

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

What do you believe the classification should be: 

Section 6: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Parcel Identification Number:

40-001-001-048-10

Classification of Property:

Real 

Residential

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as

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

SHR 

Traninfosde06 JE60504-L 

OT/24/2% 

$l 

Chick: 

1294 

Ant: $125.00 

RECEIVED 

T0: 

DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS 

JUL 

3 0 2024 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

i 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

RcHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

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 

M.I. 

Last Name/Company Name fe 

s 

rus Jas 

FoRbow 

Malling AddresgfNo., Street, P.O. Box or Rural oh 

12685 

(LASER 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

] 

Clinton 

MI | 4492.3K 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

734 

_9Y44-4S 70 

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

Section 2: Petitioner’s AtfomayLAutherZeY Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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? 

parcels areyou | [] yes* 

No** 

appealing? 

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

Page 2

mt 

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) 

Prue Cash and Taxable Value 

£1 Poverty Exemption 

J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[71 Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[1 Uncapping of Taxable Value 

1 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[1 Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a 

[0 Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5; Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

SEE 

ATTrRohed A 

S7a7E menT 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? xX Yes 

[Hl] No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: OX march 

[| July 

O December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[} Not required to attend 

(} Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

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

[ll] 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: 

. 

S000! =081-WHE~/0 

Classification of Property: 

B® 

Perse! 

{check ane) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

{check one) 

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

oY poo 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

29949 

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

{ 30, 0x0 

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

[216 

x. 8 

= 

5732 

If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of AsbessgdNalue, enter your contention of Taxable Value, 

- 

mm) 

= 

24. 749. 5 yo7 29 G49 

"6, (99.495 1 poniewtle 

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

Parcet 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) 

0 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(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 I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

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

O Yes 

XK 

vo 

Are you appeating ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption or Disabled Veterans Exemption? 

m} Yes Ko 

If you answered yes to either or both of the above questions, you are not required to

Page 5

AT

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

Douglas Fairbanks,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736

Township Of Bear Lake,

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: October 10, 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

Douglas Fairbanks

12695 Case Rd

Clinton , MI 49236

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

Douglas Fairbanks,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003736

Township Of Bear Lake,

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: October 10, 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

SHR 

Traninfosde06 JE60504-L 

OT/24/2% 

$l 

Chick: 

1294 

Ant: $125.00 

RECEIVED 

T0: 

DOUGLAS FAIRBANKS 

JUL 

3 0 2024 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

i 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

RcHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

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 

M.I. 

Last Name/Company Name fe 

s 

rus Jas 

FoRbow 

Malling AddresgfNo., Street, P.O. Box or Rural oh 

12685 

(LASER 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

] 

Clinton 

MI | 4492.3K 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

734 

_9Y44-4S 70 

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

Section 2: Petitioner’s AtfomayLAutherZeY Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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? 

parcels areyou | [] yes* 

No** 

appealing? 

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

Page 2

mt 

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) 

Prue Cash and Taxable Value 

£1 Poverty Exemption 

J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[71 Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[1 Uncapping of Taxable Value 

1 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[1 Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a 

[0 Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5; Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

SEE 

ATTrRohed A 

S7a7E menT 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? xX Yes 

[Hl] No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: OX march 

[| July 

O December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[} Not required to attend 

(} Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

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

[ll] 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: 

. 

S000! =081-WHE~/0 

Classification of Property: 

B® 

Perse! 

{check ane) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

{check one) 

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

oY poo 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

29949 

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

{ 30, 0x0 

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

[216 

x. 8 

= 

5732 

If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of AsbessgdNalue, enter your contention of Taxable Value, 

- 

mm) 

= 

24. 749. 5 yo7 29 G49 

"6, (99.495 1 poniewtle 

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

Parcet 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) 

0 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(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 I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

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

O Yes 

XK 

vo 

Are you appeating ONLY the denial of a Poverty Exemption or Disabled Veterans Exemption? 

m} Yes Ko 

If you answered yes to either or both of the above questions, you are not required to

Page 5

AT

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.