Farmington Hills Holdings, Petitioner Vs. City Of Farmington Hills, 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 Hills Holdings, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002752 

 

City of Farmington Hills, 

 

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. 25-002752 

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: October 27, 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

RECEIVED 

0CT 24 2025 

WiC 13AN TAX TRIBUNAL 

i 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

Farmington Hills Holdings 

Petitioner, 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002752 

City of Farmington Hills 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

(VALUATION) 

1. 

The subject property is in Oakland 

County. 

2. 

Parcel Number: 22-23-02-108-031 

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

Form addressing all other paresis atissue.) 

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

of Review are: 

Tax year 

Assessed Value (AV) 

| Taxable Value HL 

[2025 +. 

321,930 

293,900 

= mer 

4. 

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

settlement purposes are: 

Tax year 

_|. True Cash Value 

AV 

Tv 

3025 

B02700 

301,350 

293,900 

[TYRE 

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.)

Page 2

MOAHR Docket No. 26-002752 

Page 2 of 2 

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

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) 

Ni 

s TE 

i 

Printed Nerve sup 

Stephen Potter [JI 

Date: Ott, 2025 

Signature of Respondent's, suihorized representative: 

Dtoe 4.4 

Printed Name: Matv®inghatoongsanysr Debra A. Walling, Esq. 

Date: Oct 16, 2025

Page 3

POLTEREAW GROUP: 

2600 W. BIG BEAVER, SUITE L100 

| TROY, MI 48084 

* 

g 

$0.74+% 

i 

us POSTAGE I | 

FIRST-CLAS: 

US 

0635000226838. 

06

FROM 4806 

ov ~ HUT 

Tol e232 

11 £T WYSZOZ 100 1 

St IN XT 140d 13 

j 

o8t 

1 

GG 

; 

nT 

hE RIE Ey Br pet 

hE 

AEE EHR

Page 4

Rar 

METROPLEX MI 480 

-_. #%" 

21 OCT 2025AM 17 L 

Te, 

a,

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 

0CT 24 2025 

WiC 13AN TAX TRIBUNAL 

i 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

Farmington Hills Holdings 

Petitioner, 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002752 

City of Farmington Hills 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

(VALUATION) 

1. 

The subject property is in Oakland 

County. 

2. 

Parcel Number: 22-23-02-108-031 

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

Form addressing all other paresis atissue.) 

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

of Review are: 

Tax year 

Assessed Value (AV) 

| Taxable Value HL 

[2025 +. 

321,930 

293,900 

= mer 

4. 

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

settlement purposes are: 

Tax year 

_|. True Cash Value 

AV 

Tv 

3025 

B02700 

301,350 

293,900 

[TYRE 

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.)

Page 2

MOAHR Docket No. 26-002752 

Page 2 of 2 

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

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) 

Ni 

s TE 

i 

Printed Nerve sup 

Stephen Potter [JI 

Date: Ott, 2025 

Signature of Respondent's, suihorized representative: 

Dtoe 4.4 

Printed Name: Matv®inghatoongsanysr Debra A. Walling, Esq. 

Date: Oct 16, 2025

Page 3

POLTEREAW GROUP: 

2600 W. BIG BEAVER, SUITE L100 

| TROY, MI 48084 

* 

g 

$0.74+% 

i 

us POSTAGE I | 

FIRST-CLAS: 

US 

0635000226838. 

06

FROM 4806 

ov ~ HUT 

Tol e232 

11 £T WYSZOZ 100 1 

St IN XT 140d 13 

j 

o8t 

1 

GG 

; 

nT 

hE RIE Ey Br pet 

hE 

AEE EHR

Page 4

Rar 

METROPLEX MI 480 

-_. #%" 

21 OCT 2025AM 17 L 

Te, 

a,

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 

 

 

Farmington Hills Holdings, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002752 

 

-vs- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 22-23-02-108-031 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

POLTER LAW GROUP, P.C. 

Stephen Polter (P72591) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2600 W. Big Beaver, Ste. L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ JOPPICH & 

 AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

Debra A. Walling (P37067) 

Attorney for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3554 

(248) 489-4100 

dwalling@rsjalaw.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS, by and through its 

Attorneys, ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER PC, and for its Answer to 

Petitioner's Petition, states as follows: 

1. 

As to Paragraph 1, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

2. 

As to Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

3. 

As to Paragraph 3, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 

4. 

As to Paragraph 4, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 

5. 

As to Paragraph 5, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 

6. 

As to Paragraph 6, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

7. 

As to Paragraph 7, no response is required as no allegations have been made.

Page 2

2 

 

8. 

As to Paragraph 8, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 

9. 

As to Paragraph 9, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 

10. 

As to Paragraph 10, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

11. 

As to Paragraph 11, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

12. 

As to Paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained 

therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

13. 

As to Paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained 

therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

14. 

As to Paragraph 14, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein 

15. 

As to Paragraph 15, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 

16. 

As to Paragraph 16, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

17. 

As to Paragraph 17, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained 

therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

18. 

As to Paragraph 18, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained 

therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

19. 

As to Paragraph 19, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the 

reason that the allegations are untrue. 

20. 

As to Paragraph 20, no response is required as no allegations have been made.

Page 3

3 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS, 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. 

ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH 

& AMTSBUECHLER, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 /s/ Debra A. Walling 

 

 

DEBRA A. WALLING (P37067) 

Attorney for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

(248) 489-4100 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

1. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of 

action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

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 the Respondent 

or its agents. 

3. 

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. 

4. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash 

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

5. 

Petitioner has failed 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 has also failed 

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

improper.

Page 4

4 

 

6. 

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than 50% was applied to the true 

cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others, to arrive at the respective 

assessments appearing on the roll. 

7. 

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 the Respondent's taxing unit. 

8. 

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. 

9. 

If Petitioner appeared at the Board of Review, Petitioner failed in its appearance 

before the Board of Review to specifically allege: 

a. 

The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash 

value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and 

constitutional limitations. 

b. 

The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment 

is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other 

property within the City of Farmington Hills,

Page 5

5

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. 25-002752

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Farmington Hills (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

Debra

M.I.

A

Last Name

Walling

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

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

dwalling@rsjalaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Debra A. Walling

/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 

AUG 2 6 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farmington Hills Holdings 

Petitioner(s) 

S 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No.25-002752 

City of FH 

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 August 21 

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 11 Mile Rd, Farmington Hills, MI 48336 

2. 

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

31555 W 11 Mile Rd, Farmington Hills, MI 48336 

3. 

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

250 Elizabeth Lake Rd # 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. 

FarmingtonMI4833 

6. 

State Treasurer (via first class mail);

Page 2

Te X

EDTA 

RO 

: 

: 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX ARPEALS LL 

§ 

USposToEM 

© 

A division of Polter Law Group 

06350002268383 

FROM 48084 is

2600 W Big Beaver | Ste L100 

| 

Troy, MI'48084 

~ oe MTT 

OR 30232 

Lows 

ing Mz 4304

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 

Lom 

JUN 02 2025 

pi 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Srvare 

’ 

a 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farmington Hills Holdings 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Farmington Hills 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 22-23-02-108-031 

(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 201 Comm

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

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: 

32825 NW Hwy. 

FH, MI 48334 

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

local governmental unit): City of FH 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

32825 NW Hwy. 

FH, MI 48334 

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 or loss? ___ 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 years (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 

643,860 

321,930 

293,900 

17. 

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

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

450,000 

225,000 

225,000 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

193,860 

96,930 

68,900 

19. 

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

Reduction of Assessed and Taxable to fall more in line with comps, market, income, 

condition.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 4 of 4 

sal 

i 

ized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

RT 

ep 

WAL Vik 

Printed Name of Petitioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Stephen Polter 

Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

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

Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 

Date: May 25, 2025

Page 5

May 27, 2025 

RECEIVED 

: 

MAY: 

0 205 

f= [= 

i FAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLC 

A division of Polter Law Group 

2nd Floor 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 Commetce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) 

for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Notton Shores, 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 Cotp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 1 check (#1336) in the amount of 

$400. 

Warten Manot v Watten, 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 Gteenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. 

Springfield 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 Warren, 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

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 Hills Holdings, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002752

City Of Farmington Hills, 

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: July 21, 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 

Lom 

JUN 02 2025 

pi 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Srvare 

’ 

a 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Farmington Hills Holdings 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Farmington Hills 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 22-23-02-108-031 

(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 201 Comm

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

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: 

32825 NW Hwy. 

FH, MI 48334 

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

local governmental unit): City of FH 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

32825 NW Hwy. 

FH, MI 48334 

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 or loss? ___ 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 years (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 

643,860 

321,930 

293,900 

17. 

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

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

450,000 

225,000 

225,000 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

193,860 

96,930 

68,900 

19. 

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

Reduction of Assessed and Taxable to fall more in line with comps, market, income, 

condition.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 4 of 4 

sal 

i 

ized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

RT 

ep 

WAL Vik 

Printed Name of Petitioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

Stephen Polter 

Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

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

Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 

Date: May 25, 2025

Page 5

May 27, 2025 

RECEIVED 

: 

MAY: 

0 205 

f= [= 

i FAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLC 

A division of Polter Law Group 

2nd Floor 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 Commetce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) 

for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Notton Shores, 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 Cotp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 1 check (#1336) in the amount of 

$400. 

Warten Manot v Watten, 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 Gteenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. 

Springfield 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 Warren, 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

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.