Encore At Main LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak, 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 

Encore at Main LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the Stipulation and finds that it comports with the mandates 

of State law.1 As a result, the Tribunal shall enter the parties’ Stipulation. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment including all 

attachments, terms and conditions is GRANTED and ADOPTED, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

 

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 true cash and taxable values as provided in this 

Consent Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment.2 

 

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 as 

required by the Consent Judgment within 28 days of the entry of the Consent 

Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall, unless otherwise indicated, include a 

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

interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also, unless otherwise indicated, 

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, unless 

otherwise indicated, 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 Consent Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest 

shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

Page 2 of 2 

 

2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, 

through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 

31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at 

the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 

6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) 

after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after 

December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 

2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, 

through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 

30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at 

the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 

9.47%, and (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 

8.66%. 

 

This Consent Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

See docket look up for a copy of stipulation and for any possible refund paragraph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

 

Entered: September 9, 2025 

am 

 

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

61518203.2 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

ENCORE AT MAIN LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

CITY OF ROYAL OAK, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1.

The parcel is located in Oakland County. 

2.

The case is pending in the X Entire Tribunal OR __ Small Claims Division. 

3.

Property Parcel No: 72-25-21-433-022. 

4.

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of 

Review are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

Assessed 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$10,010,120

$5,005,060

$5,004,720

5.

The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for settlement 

purposes are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

State Equalized 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$9,400,000

$4,700,000

$4,700,000

6.

If stipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed or tax years 

added through motions to amend that have been granted by the Tribunal, list the separate 

facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over those tax year or 

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

7.

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties that would 

affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not limited to, the joint 

payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc.:

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

2 

61518203.2 

By granting, approving and/or adopting the Parties’ Stipulation in this 

case, the Consent Judgment entered in this case further orders and 

adjudges that: 

Any refunds shall be made payable to Petitioner named herein and sent to 

Stewart Mandell, Honigman LLP, 660 Woodward, Suite 2290, Detroit, MI 

48226; 

Calculations of any refund amount shall also be sent to Petitioner’s counsel 

at the same address; and 

All interest due on any refund is waived if, and only if, all refunds otherwise 

due are paid within 60 days of the entry of the consent judgment, however, 

otherwise interest shall be paid as provided in the Tax Tribunal Act, 

including MCL 205.737. 

HONIGMAN LLP

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By:/s/ Stewart L. Mandell 

By:/s/ Seth A O’Loughlin 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’loughlin (P80257) 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3087 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

Dated: September 5, 2025 

Dated: September 5, 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.

Page 1

61518203.2 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

ENCORE AT MAIN LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

CITY OF ROYAL OAK, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1.

The parcel is located in Oakland County. 

2.

The case is pending in the X Entire Tribunal OR __ Small Claims Division. 

3.

Property Parcel No: 72-25-21-433-022. 

4.

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of 

Review are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

Assessed 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$10,010,120

$5,005,060

$5,004,720

5.

The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for settlement 

purposes are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

State Equalized 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$9,400,000

$4,700,000

$4,700,000

6.

If stipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed or tax years 

added through motions to amend that have been granted by the Tribunal, list the separate 

facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over those tax year or 

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

7.

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties that would 

affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not limited to, the joint 

payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc.:

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

2 

61518203.2 

By granting, approving and/or adopting the Parties’ Stipulation in this 

case, the Consent Judgment entered in this case further orders and 

adjudges that: 

Any refunds shall be made payable to Petitioner named herein and sent to 

Stewart Mandell, Honigman LLP, 660 Woodward, Suite 2290, Detroit, MI 

48226; 

Calculations of any refund amount shall also be sent to Petitioner’s counsel 

at the same address; and 

All interest due on any refund is waived if, and only if, all refunds otherwise 

due are paid within 60 days of the entry of the consent judgment, however, 

otherwise interest shall be paid as provided in the Tax Tribunal Act, 

including MCL 205.737. 

HONIGMAN LLP

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By:/s/ Stewart L. Mandell 

By:/s/ Seth A O’Loughlin 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’loughlin (P80257) 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3087 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

Dated: September 5, 2025 

Dated: September 5, 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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

ENCORE AT MAIN LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF ROYAL OAK, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002364 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

STEWART MANDELL (P33781) 

JACKIE J. COOK (P68781) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

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, City of Royal Oak, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 as the 

Tribunal’s Order and Petitioner’s filing speak for themselves. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 as to parcel number. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder of the 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 2

2

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 insofar as it is the entity that 

assesses and collects property taxes with relation to the parcel identified in the Petition. 

4. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 as to the stated values. 

5. 

Respondent admits that subject property is classified as commercial real. With 

respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5, Respondent lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner 

to its proofs. 

6. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 6 but 

denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

7. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief relative to the value of a loss but 

denies that such a loss has occurred. 

8. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 8 as the General 

Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 

9. 

 Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

10. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 10, 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.

Page 3

3

11. 

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, City of Royal Oak, 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. 

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: July 21, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, City of Royal Oak, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

1. 

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

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

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). 

3. 

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).

Page 4

4

4. 

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. 

5. 

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. 

6. 

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 

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

Page 5

5

13

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-002364

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Royal Oak (OAKLAND)

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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Encore At Main LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

Parcel No. 72-25-21-433-022 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Honigman LLP 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

1750 S. Telegraph Rd., Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(313) 465-7420 

(248) 731-3089 

llahanlaw.com 

slmandell@honigman.com 

jcook@honigman.com 

Proof of Service 

Lisa Joseph states that on 

(z / 23 [ 2S. she did serve a copy of the Petition, with 

docket number, upon the parties named on the attached list. 

Dated: bfas/os 

(Fein Urageh

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

CLERK 

CITY OF ROYAL OAK 

CITY HALL, 1ST FLOOR, 211 S. WILLIAMS STREET 

ROYAL OAK, MI 48067 

ASSESSOR 

CITY OF ROYAL OAK 

CITY HALL, 1ST FLOOR, 211 S. WILLIAMS STREET 

ROYAL OAK, MI 48067 

AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

CLERK 

OAKLAND COUNTY 

1200 N. TELEGRAPH ROAD 

PONTIAC, MI 48341-0413 

DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZATION 

OAKLAND COUNTY 

1200 N. TELEGRAPH ROAD 

PONTIAC, MI 48341-0413 

SECRETARY OF SCHOOL BOARD 

ROYAL OAK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

800 DEVILLEN 

ROYAL OAK, MI 48073 

STATE TREASURER 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

TREASURY BUILDING 

430 W. ALLEGAN ST. 

LANSING, MI 48922 

25-0089

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

Encore at Main LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002364

City Of Royal Oak, 

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: June 23, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

Encore at Main LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002364

City Of Royal Oak, 

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: June 23, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Encore At Main LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002364 

Parcel No. 72-25-21-433-022 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

jcook@honigman.com

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Rd., Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com

soloughlin@hallahanlaw.com

Petition 

Encore At Main LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, says: 

1.

Pursuant to the Tax Tribunal’s June 10, 2025 Order Severing 2025 Tax Year and 

Assigning Docket No. 25-002364, Petitioner hereby files this Entire Tribunal Petition for this 

property tax matter. 

2.

Petitioner's principal office address is 1985 W. Big Beaver, Suite 300, Troy, MI 

48084. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 72-25-

21-433-022 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 1100 S. Main St., Royal Oak, located in 

Oakland County, Michigan. 

3.

Respondent, City of Royal Oak, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's 

Property.

Page 2

2 

4.

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

$5,004,720 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $5,005,060, which will result in a state equalized 

value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

5.

Petitioner's Property is classified as commercial real. Petitioner's Property is 

presently used or available for use for commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was originally designed to be used for commercial purposes. 

6.

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

value and (d) uniformity. 

7.

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute 

relative to the value of a loss. 

8.

A Board of Review protest was not required for Petitioner’s Property. 

9.

Petitioner's Property has multifamily units and to the best knowledge of the 

undersigned, Petitioner's Property is not subject to governmental regulatory agreements or a 

subsidy. 

10.

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 

for the reasons that: 

(a)

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b)

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(c)

The 2025 assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, 

is based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's

Page 3

3 

Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is based upon the application of wrong principles; 

and 

(d)

The 2025 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: (i) reducing the 

2025 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $5,004,720 to $3,800,000; (ii) reducing the 2025 

assessed and state equalized value of Petitioner's Property from $5,005,060 to $3,800,000; 

(iii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and 

costs; and (iv) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is entitled. 

Dated: June 23, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioners 

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Dated: June 23, 2025 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By: _______________________________________ 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(248) 566-8474 

jcook@honigman.com

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 

Encore at Main LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-001346 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2025 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT TO 

DOCKET NUMBER 25-002364 

 

On May 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal permit it to amend 

the petition filed in this case to include the 2025 tax year. 

 

On May 28, 2025, Respondent filed a response to the motion. In the response, 

Respondent requested that the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s motion and dismiss the 

appeal. However, Respondent’s response to the motion goes on to state that “[i]f 

Petitioner is permitted to pursue its claim relative to the 2025 tax year, Respondent 

requests that the 2025 tax year be assigned its own docket number and be allowed to 

proceed independent of this appeal.” Respondent notes that valuation disclosures and 

prehearing statements are due August 4, 2025, and there is insufficient time for 

Respondent to conduct discovery or prepare a valuation disclosure for the 2025 tax 

year in that limited amount of time. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion, response, and the case file and finds that 

Petitioner timely filed its Motion to Amend, included the necessary information and filing 

fee, and otherwise met all requirements set forth in MCL 205.737 and MCL 205.735a. 

Due to the stage in which this case is at, however, and in the interest of judicial 

efficiency, the 2025 tax year shall be severed from this case and assigned to a new 

docket number. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal for the 2025 tax year is 

SEVERED and ASSIGNED to Docket No. 25-002364. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a petition for the 2025 tax year 

within 21 days of the entry of this order. The petition shall note the docket number

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-001346 

Page 2 of 2 

 

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2025 tax year and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2025 docket as a “Severed Petition.”1 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in Petitioner being held in default, as 

provided by TTR 237. 

 

 

Entered: June 10, 2025 

 

 

By ________________________________ 

smm 

 

 

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 Alternatively, the petition may be downloaded from the Tribunal’s website and mailed to the Tribunal via 

United States Postal Service at: Michigan Tax Tribunal, PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. The petition 

may also be delivered to the Tribunal via overnight carrier (UPS, FedEx, or DHL) at: Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, 2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933.

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.