Elizabeth G Genter Petitioner V Township Of Whitehall 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 

Elizabeth G Genter, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580 

 

Whitehall Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner is appealing the assessed and taxable values of Parcel 

No. 61-03-693-000-0043-20, and the petition indicates that the property is classified as 

residential, and that Petitioner did not protest the assessment to the Board of Review. 

A protest to the March Board of Review is a prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s 

jurisdiction over such properties under MCL 205.735a. As such, and inasmuch as the 

Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory filing 

requirement or deadline,1 it has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief requested.2 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this 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 

 

1 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 

2 The Tribunal also has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do 

not establish a prima facie case indicating that the assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an 

error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an 

erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). See International Place Apartments – 

IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 

425 (2006), Eltel Associates, LLC v City of Pontiac, 278 Mich App 588 (2008), and Briggs Tax Service, 

LLC v Detroit Public Schools, 483 Mich 1024 (2009).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000580 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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 

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. 

 

 

Entered: July 17, 2026 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

kac 

 

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

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

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

is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no authority over 

those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.1 Further, 

the Tribunal also has no authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not 

establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a 

transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., 

“an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).2 Rather, the facts 

alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical 

error or mutual mistake of fact. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The 

appeal shall continue for the 2026 tax year(s) only.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: June 23, 2026

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

1 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

2 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

Page 2

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

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

is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no authority over 

those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.3 Further, 

the Tribunal also has no authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not 

establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a 

transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., 

“an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).4 Rather, the facts 

alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical 

error or mutual mistake of fact. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The 

appeal shall continue for the 2026 tax year(s) only.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: June 23, 2026

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

3 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

4 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

Respondent.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

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

is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no authority over 

those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed.5 Further, 

the Tribunal also has no authority over those assessments, as the facts alleged do not 

establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a 

transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., 

“an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).6 Rather, the facts 

alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical 

error or mutual mistake of fact. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The 

appeal shall continue for the 2026 tax year(s) only.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: June 23, 2026

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

5 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

6 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this order. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner

 is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.1 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: June 18, 2026

1 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Page 2 of 2

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this order. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner

 is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.2 

Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: June 18, 2026

2 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Page 2 of 2

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 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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action

Page 6

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

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

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

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Elizabeth

M.I.

G

Last Name/Company Name

Genter

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

7514 Whitehall Road

City or Town

Whitehall

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49461

Telephone Number

616-550-9165

Fax Number

E-mail Address

plucker15@gmail.com

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

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Firm Name (if any)

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

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

 *If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

7514 Whitehall Rd

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Whitehall

Michigan

49461-9597

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Whitehall (MUSKEGON)

County 

Muskegon

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

Taxable Value Only (calculation)

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

According to our property tax bills, the current taxable value of our property is $182,900. When using the estimated Dec '25 market value I obtained from public 

records equal to $294,000, it should have been closer to the realm of $147,000. A taxable value and SEV of $182,900 places the market value of our property at 

$365,800, which is $25,300 higher than it has historically ever been estimated and is extremely inaccurate based on market data trends. We purchased the property 

for $275,000 in October 2024.

The taxable value had been assessed too high by a significant amount following our purchase of the property in late 2024. As first time home owners, my husband 

and I were mostly uneducated about taxable value and SEV at that time. But when discussing our finances with an advisor in the final week of March this year, I 

was informed that the property taxes we were paying looked higher than he would have expected. This prompted me to begin researching how those values are 

calculated and I discovered a significant difference between our home's current taxable value and what the taxable value should be. While exploring the appeal 

process, I was informed by our local assessor that our home's uncapped taxable value was determined in a mass assessment process, not individually, and that I 

would have to wait until next year to appeal that value because the local appeal window had ended just several weeks prior at the time of our conversation. I also 

read about the July and December boards, but that locally appealing assessed taxable value can only be done in March. According to my research, the average 

acceptable margin of error for mass assessments is 15% for properties similar to ours in Michigan. However, I calculated the margin of error for our property's 

assessed value at roughly 33%. That being said, I would like to have our property's taxable value adjusted down to an appropriate value. I am also requesting 

reimbursement equal to the difference between the property taxes we paid in 2025 and what the property taxes should have been based on a more accurate taxable 

value, as well as reimbursement of the same nature on property taxes we pay in 2026 if this appeal is not resolved in time for the adjusted taxable value to apply to 

the 2026 property tax season.

I believe it was negligent for our local Assessor Office to include our property, which had its taxable value uncapped after over 20 years, in a mass assessment 

instead of individually assessing the new taxable value and SEV. This is a large factor contributing to my decision to initiate this appeal process with the State rather 

than wait until March '27 to begin the appeal process locally.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025, 2026

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? No

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND upload the BOR decision: 

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

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

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Parcel Identification Number: 61-03-693-000-0043-20

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

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

182900

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

182900

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

285000 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

142500

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

Page 4

STATE

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

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 281. 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: June 18, 2026

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 2

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

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 281. 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: June 18, 2026

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

Elizabeth G Genter,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000580

Township Of Whitehall,

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 281. 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: June 18, 2026

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

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

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

Filer Type: Individual 

First Name

Elizabeth

M.I.

G

Last Name/Company Name

Genter

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

7514 Whitehall Road

City or Town

Whitehall

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49461

Telephone Number

616-550-9165

Fax Number

E-mail Address

plucker15@gmail.com

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

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Firm Name (if any)

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

E-mail Address 

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

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

 *If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

7514 Whitehall Rd

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Whitehall

Michigan

49461-9597

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Whitehall (MUSKEGON)

County 

Muskegon

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

Taxable Value Only (calculation)

 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

According to our property tax bills, the current taxable value of our property is $182,900. When using the estimated Dec '25 market value I obtained from public 

records equal to $294,000, it should have been closer to the realm of $147,000. A taxable value and SEV of $182,900 places the market value of our property at 

$365,800, which is $25,300 higher than it has historically ever been estimated and is extremely inaccurate based on market data trends. We purchased the property 

for $275,000 in October 2024.

The taxable value had been assessed too high by a significant amount following our purchase of the property in late 2024. As first time home owners, my husband 

and I were mostly uneducated about taxable value and SEV at that time. But when discussing our finances with an advisor in the final week of March this year, I 

was informed that the property taxes we were paying looked higher than he would have expected. This prompted me to begin researching how those values are 

calculated and I discovered a significant difference between our home's current taxable value and what the taxable value should be. While exploring the appeal 

process, I was informed by our local assessor that our home's uncapped taxable value was determined in a mass assessment process, not individually, and that I 

would have to wait until next year to appeal that value because the local appeal window had ended just several weeks prior at the time of our conversation. I also 

read about the July and December boards, but that locally appealing assessed taxable value can only be done in March. According to my research, the average 

acceptable margin of error for mass assessments is 15% for properties similar to ours in Michigan. However, I calculated the margin of error for our property's 

assessed value at roughly 33%. That being said, I would like to have our property's taxable value adjusted down to an appropriate value. I am also requesting 

reimbursement equal to the difference between the property taxes we paid in 2025 and what the property taxes should have been based on a more accurate taxable 

value, as well as reimbursement of the same nature on property taxes we pay in 2026 if this appeal is not resolved in time for the adjusted taxable value to apply to 

the 2026 property tax season.

I believe it was negligent for our local Assessor Office to include our property, which had its taxable value uncapped after over 20 years, in a mass assessment 

instead of individually assessing the new taxable value and SEV. This is a large factor contributing to my decision to initiate this appeal process with the State rather 

than wait until March '27 to begin the appeal process locally.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

Year(s) you are appealing:

2025, 2026

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? No

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND upload the BOR decision: 

If No, check the applicable reason(s):

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

Did you request a Poverty Exemption at the BOR? 

If Yes, check which BOR considered your application AND upload the BOR decision: 

 March  July  December

If No, explain why:

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels.

Parcel Identification Number: 61-03-693-000-0043-20

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

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

182900

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR:

182900

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

285000 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

142500

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

Page 4

STATE

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.