Farmington 9 Property LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Farmington, 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 

Farmington 9 Property LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002501 

 

City of Farmington, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

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, 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 31, 2023, 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002501 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

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

the rate of 9.47%, and (viii) 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: November 17, 2025 

sb 

 

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

RECEIVE: 

gem, 

NOV 1 3 2025 

Ca 

y 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farmington 9 Property LLC 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

v 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002501 

City of Farmington 

| 

1 

-1 

A072 

Respondent. 

[i 

fit: 

$50.00 

I= 

FOLTER LAW GROUF TOLTA 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSEN 

(VALUATION) 

1. 

The subject property is in Oakland 

County. 

2. 

Parcel Number: 20-23-27-352-007 

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

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

3. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board 

of Review are: 

Tax year 

Assessed Value (AV) 

| Taxable Value (TV) 

2025 

605,580 

528,040 

4. The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Tax year 

True Cash Value 

AV 

TV 

2025 

925,000 

462,500 

462,500 

5. 

If the stipulated TV does not equal the prior year TV multiplied by the applicable 

inflation rate multiplier, explain why (e.g., transfer of ownership, additions, losses, 

omitted property etc.) 

SSM

Page 2

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002501 

Page 2 of 2 

of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page if necessary): 

1. Petitioner waives interest on all refunds due. 

2. Taxing authority has 60 days from entry of consent to pay any refunds due. 

NOTE: The Stipulation MUST include ALL parcels and ALL tax years included in the 

appeal (including subsequent tax years on or after April 1 of each year for appeals 

pending in the Small Claims Division). The parties may agree, however, to withdraw the 

appeal of specific parcels and/or tax year(s). 

IF APPLICABLE, complete the following section(s). Otherwise, LEAVE BLANK. 

7. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of parcel number: 

(If more than one parcel is being withdrawn, attach a separate page addressing 

all other parcels being withdrawn.) 

8. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of tax year(s) 

Signature pf Petitioner's CD aed, none, Petitioner: 

rd 

TT) 

bY 

|= 

Printed Name: Stephen Polter (P72591) 

Date: Oct 31, 2025 

Signature of Respondent's authorized representative: 

Isl Stephanie S. Morita 

Printed 

Name: Stephanie Simon Morita 

Date: 

November 4. 2025

Page 3

POLTER LAW GROUP 

2600 W. BIG BEAVER, SUITE L100 

| TROY, MI 48084 

METROFLEX BRI 480 

CRON 2025 PM BL 

S

ESTER 

IS 

CX 

Den 32 

| 

| ons IW) ML 

J 6959 

cr 

steffi iodgl hfs 

foto post lE 

gy

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

RECEIVE: 

gem, 

NOV 1 3 2025 

Ca 

y 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farmington 9 Property LLC 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

v 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002501 

City of Farmington 

| 

1 

-1 

A072 

Respondent. 

[i 

fit: 

$50.00 

I= 

FOLTER LAW GROUF TOLTA 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSEN 

(VALUATION) 

1. 

The subject property is in Oakland 

County. 

2. 

Parcel Number: 20-23-27-352-007 

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

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

3. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board 

of Review are: 

Tax year 

Assessed Value (AV) 

| Taxable Value (TV) 

2025 

605,580 

528,040 

4. The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Tax year 

True Cash Value 

AV 

TV 

2025 

925,000 

462,500 

462,500 

5. 

If the stipulated TV does not equal the prior year TV multiplied by the applicable 

inflation rate multiplier, explain why (e.g., transfer of ownership, additions, losses, 

omitted property etc.) 

SSM

Page 2

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002501 

Page 2 of 2 

of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page if necessary): 

1. Petitioner waives interest on all refunds due. 

2. Taxing authority has 60 days from entry of consent to pay any refunds due. 

NOTE: The Stipulation MUST include ALL parcels and ALL tax years included in the 

appeal (including subsequent tax years on or after April 1 of each year for appeals 

pending in the Small Claims Division). The parties may agree, however, to withdraw the 

appeal of specific parcels and/or tax year(s). 

IF APPLICABLE, complete the following section(s). Otherwise, LEAVE BLANK. 

7. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of parcel number: 

(If more than one parcel is being withdrawn, attach a separate page addressing 

all other parcels being withdrawn.) 

8. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of tax year(s) 

Signature pf Petitioner's CD aed, none, Petitioner: 

rd 

TT) 

bY 

|= 

Printed Name: Stephen Polter (P72591) 

Date: Oct 31, 2025 

Signature of Respondent's authorized representative: 

Isl Stephanie S. Morita 

Printed 

Name: Stephanie Simon Morita 

Date: 

November 4. 2025

Page 3

POLTER LAW GROUP 

2600 W. BIG BEAVER, SUITE L100 

| TROY, MI 48084 

METROFLEX BRI 480 

CRON 2025 PM BL 

S

ESTER 

IS 

CX 

Den 32 

| 

| ons IW) ML 

J 6959 

cr 

steffi iodgl hfs 

foto post lE 

gy

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

NOTICE OF SEPTEMBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Farmington 9 Property LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Farmington,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002501

Please be advised that 25-002501 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing September 16, 2026. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be 

notified at least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not 

necessarily occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no 

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure” 

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a 

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the 

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and 

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are 

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket 

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and 

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for 

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents 

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a 

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or 

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to 

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not 

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing 

for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A party, representative, or interested 

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII 

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The 

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages 

of the Tribunal’s website. 

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s 

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002501

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties 

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being 

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure 

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures 

by May 20, 2026. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless 

disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though admissible) 

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing 

Statements by May 20, 2026. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will 

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the 

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding 

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in 

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

May 20, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that 

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating 

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted 

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

September 16, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to 

Compel have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged 

by that date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s 

valuation disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified 

on the opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain 

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date 

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this 

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one 

week before they are scheduled to appear. 

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 16, 2025

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002501

Page 3 of 3

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 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

NOTICE OF SEPTEMBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND

Page 5

MTT

Page 6

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Farmington 9 Property LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002501 

 

City of Farmington, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

POLTER LAW GROUP 

Stephen Polter (P72591) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2600 W. Big Beaver 

Suite L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

Stephanie Simon Morita (P53864) 

Matthew C. Wayne (P80542) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive 

Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 

(248) 489-4100 

smorita@rsjalaw.com 

mwayne@rsjalaw.com 

 

Respondent's Answer to Petition 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, City of Farmington, by and through its Attorneys, 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Answer to Petitioner's 

Petition, states as follows: 

1. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same 

2. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

3. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary. 

4. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary.

Page 2

2 

 

5. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 5 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary. 

6. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent 

denied as untrue and because the property is classified as commercial improved. 

7. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 7 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary. 

8. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary. 

9. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 9 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary. 

10. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

11. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

12. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent 

denies the same as untrue. 

13. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

14. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

15. 

As no allegation is made in Paragraph 15 of the Petition, no allegation is made, 

so no response is necessary.

Page 3

3 

 

16. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

17. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

18. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

19. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, Respondent denies as untrue 

that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested. 

20. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Petition, no allegation 

is made, so no response is necessary. 

21. 

Respondent further states the ratio of the average level of assessment in 

relation to true cash value in the assessment district is 50%, and the equalization factor was 

uniformly applied in the assessment district for the year in question. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Farmington, denies that Petitioner is entitled to 

the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable 

value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed 

with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully 

sustained.

Page 4

4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Stephanie Simon Morita 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STEPHANIE SIMON MORITA (P53864) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(248) 489-4100 

Dated: August 5, 2025 

 

Affirmative Defenses 

 

For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, 

Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 

 

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. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of 

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

Respondent. 

 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property 

failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the 

Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 

 

4. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash 

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

 

5. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation 

that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also 

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable 

value is improper.

Page 5

5 

 

 

6. 

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was 

applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties

Page 6

6

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. 25-002501

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Farmington (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

Stephanie

M.I.

Simon

Last Name

Morita

Firm Name (if any)

Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C. 

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

27555 Executive Drive

Suite 250

City or Town

Farmington Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48331

Telephone Number

248-489-4100

Fax Number

248-489-1726

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

smorita@rsjalaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Stephanie S. Morita

/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

RECEIVED 

JUL 2:9 2025 

amet” 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farmington 9 Property LLC 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.25-002501 

City of Farmington 

, 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

*To be filed after the Tribunal issues the Notice of Docket Number* 

Stephen Polter 

states that on July 272025 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

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

[Provide name and address of the following entities] 

1. Assessor (via certified mail): 

31555 W. Eleven Mile Road 

Farmington Hills, MI 48336 

2. 

City Clerk or Township Supervisor/Clerk (via certified mail): 

31555 W. Eleven Mile Road 

Farmington Hills, Ml 48336 

3. 

County Equalization Director (via first class mail or personal service): 

250 Elizabeth Lake Rd., Ste 1000W 

Pontiac, MI 

48341 

4. 

County Clerk (via first class mail or personal service): 

1200 N Telegraph Building #12E, Pontiac, MI 48341 

5. 

Secretary of the local school board (via first class mail or personal service): 

33000 Freedom Rd. 

Farmington MI 48336 

6. 

State Treasurer (via first class mail): 

Michigan Department of Treasury, State

Page 2

Polter Lad Cre -EFTR 

sessed 

IRC 

: 

a 

a ASAE 

—- 

A 

<_ 

ew

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JUNO22025 

I 

-— 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farminton 9 Property LLC 

; 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Farmington 

, 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 20-23-27-352-007 

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

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is 

X 

real ___ personal. 

3. 

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

contiguous? ___ Yes __ No. 

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

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

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

under appeal? ___ Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

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

appeal.) 

5. 

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

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

6. 

The property identified above is classified as 201Comm

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

8. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

The property or properties at issue are located in Oakland 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

22420 Farmington Rd. 

Farmington MI 

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

local governmental unit): Farmington 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

7091 OL, Ste 260 

WB MI 48322 

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

X 

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

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

dispute as to the value of an addition orloss? ___ Yes __ No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 

Page 3 of 4 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

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

tax year or vears (attach additional page if necessary): 

16. 

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 

1,211,160 

605,580 

528,040 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

800,000 

400,000 

400,000 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

411,160 

205,580 

128,040 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV to more reflect these accurate figures 

based on comps, condition, income, vacancy (vacant Rite Aid with $0 income), etc.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 4 of 4 

Printe 

Stephen Polter 

Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, Ml 48084 

Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 

Date: May 25, 2025

Page 5

May 27, 2025 

RECEIVED 

Co 

MAYg02025 

f= [= 

[ FAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLC 

A division of Polter Law Group 

2nd Floot Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2407 N. Grand River Avenue 

Lansing, Michigan 48906 

Re: 

Multiple 2025 PTA 

To whom it may concern, 

This mailing contains sixty-three (“63”) commercial property tax appeals/petitions and one 

(“1”) multi (2) contiguous residential appeal /petition, along with the requisite filing fees, as follows: 

SXM LLC v Hadley Twp. (multi — 2) Res., along with 2 checks (#1345-46) for 

$125 ea. 

CCCU v Muskegon /Fruitpott, along with 2 checks; one (#1320) for $250, one 

(#1393) for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Commerce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) 

for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Notton Shotes, along with 1 check (#1319) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Sandusky, along with 1 check (#1317) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Owosso, along with 1 check (#1318) in the amount of $250. 

W Investors v FH, along with 1 check (#1378) in the amount of $400. 

Rite Aid Corp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 1 check (#1336) in the amount of 

$400. 

Warren Manor v Warren, along with 2 checks; one (#1311) for $600, one (#1390) 

for $25 (totaling $625 — contiguous multi (2)). 

2Changs v N*Ville, along with 2 checks; one (#1350) for $250, one (#1389) for 

$150 (totaling $400). 

5016 Greenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. 

Sptingfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331) in the amount of $400. 

Westbelt v Clawson, along with 1 check (#1337) in the amount of $400. 

CVS (Encote) v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1316) in the amount of $250. 

10 Middlebelt v FH, along with 1 check (#1375) in the amount of $250.

Page 6

X Holdings v Warten, along with 1 check (#1329) in the amount of $400. 

Prism v Mt Pleasant, along with 1 check (#1326) in the amount of $250. 

Mishpat v Sfld., along with 2 checks; one (#1348) for $250, one (#1388) for $150 

(totaling $400). 

Greenfield Manor v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1369) in the amount of $400. 

Prep v Grand Haven, along with 1 check

Page 7

JR

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

Farmington 9 Property LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002501

City Of Farmington, 

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 25, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JUNO22025 

I 

-— 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farminton 9 Property LLC 

; 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Farmington 

, 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 20-23-27-352-007 

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

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is 

X 

real ___ personal. 

3. 

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

contiguous? ___ Yes __ No. 

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

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

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

under appeal? ___ Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

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

appeal.) 

5. 

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

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

6. 

The property identified above is classified as 201Comm

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

8. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

The property or properties at issue are located in Oakland 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

22420 Farmington Rd. 

Farmington MI 

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

local governmental unit): Farmington 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

7091 OL, Ste 260 

WB MI 48322 

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

X 

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

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

dispute as to the value of an addition orloss? ___ Yes __ No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 

Page 3 of 4 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

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

tax year or vears (attach additional page if necessary): 

16. 

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 

1,211,160 

605,580 

528,040 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

800,000 

400,000 

400,000 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

411,160 

205,580 

128,040 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV to more reflect these accurate figures 

based on comps, condition, income, vacancy (vacant Rite Aid with $0 income), etc.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 4 of 4 

Printe 

Stephen Polter 

Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, Ml 48084 

Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 

Date: May 25, 2025

Page 5

May 27, 2025 

RECEIVED 

Co 

MAYg02025 

f= [= 

[ FAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLC 

A division of Polter Law Group 

2nd Floot Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2407 N. Grand River Avenue 

Lansing, Michigan 48906 

Re: 

Multiple 2025 PTA 

To whom it may concern, 

This mailing contains sixty-three (“63”) commercial property tax appeals/petitions and one 

(“1”) multi (2) contiguous residential appeal /petition, along with the requisite filing fees, as follows: 

SXM LLC v Hadley Twp. (multi — 2) Res., along with 2 checks (#1345-46) for 

$125 ea. 

CCCU v Muskegon /Fruitpott, along with 2 checks; one (#1320) for $250, one 

(#1393) for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Commerce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) 

for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Notton Shotes, along with 1 check (#1319) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Sandusky, along with 1 check (#1317) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Owosso, along with 1 check (#1318) in the amount of $250. 

W Investors v FH, along with 1 check (#1378) in the amount of $400. 

Rite Aid Corp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 1 check (#1336) in the amount of 

$400. 

Warren Manor v Warren, along with 2 checks; one (#1311) for $600, one (#1390) 

for $25 (totaling $625 — contiguous multi (2)). 

2Changs v N*Ville, along with 2 checks; one (#1350) for $250, one (#1389) for 

$150 (totaling $400). 

5016 Greenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. 

Sptingfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331) in the amount of $400. 

Westbelt v Clawson, along with 1 check (#1337) in the amount of $400. 

CVS (Encote) v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1316) in the amount of $250. 

10 Middlebelt v FH, along with 1 check (#1375) in the amount of $250.

Page 6

X Holdings v Warten, along with 1 check (#1329) in the amount of $400. 

Prism v Mt Pleasant, along with 1 check (#1326) in the amount of $250. 

Mishpat v Sfld., along with 2 checks; one (#1348) for $250, one (#1388) for $150 

(totaling $400). 

Greenfield Manor v Detroit, along with 1 check (#1369) in the amount of $400. 

Prep v Grand Haven, along with 1 check

Page 7

JR

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.