Fenton Heights Apts LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek, 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

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002755

City Of Battle Creek,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

have filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: February 3, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002755

City Of Battle Creek,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

have filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: February 3, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002755

City Of Battle Creek,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

have filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: February 3, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

FEB 0 3 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC 

Petitioner, 

PID: 

0076-00-870-0 

\Z 

DOCKET #: 

25-002755 

City of Battle Creek, 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW PETITION 

Petitioner, Fenton Heights Apts, LLC, and Respondent, City of Battle Creek, through their 

respective authorized representatives, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

1. 

Withdrawal of Petition, 

Petitioner voluntarily withdraws the above-captioned property tax appeal filed with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal concerning the assessment of the property identified hereinabove. 

2. 

No Further Tribunal Action Needed. 

The parties agree that this withdrawal resolves all issues raised in this appeal and that no 

further action by the Tribunal is required, except for entry of an order acknowledging the

Page 2

valuation, classification, exemption, or any other substantive issue related to the subject 

property. 

4, 

Costs and Fees, 

Each party shall be responsible for its own costs, fees, and expenses incurred in 

connection with this appeal, unless otherwise stated below. 

5. 

Authority to Sign. 

The individuals executing this stipulation represent that they are authorized to do so on 

behalf of their respective parties. 

Signatures 

PETITIONER 

Name: Stephen 

Polter (P72591) 

Title/Capaefty:{Counsel for reins [) 1 

Signature 

Date: Jan 30, 2026 

oN 

RESPONDENT 

Name: Aaron Poy, Assedgr (Seth O’Loughlin, Counsel — Hallahan & Assoc.) 

Title/Capacity oes 

Respondent 

Signature: 

Date: 

l-2¢-2¢

Page 3

i 

ils 

METROPLEX MI 480 

’ 

HF JAN O26 PMR 

1 

. 

SEF JAN 2 

f 

L 

= = 

| \ 

2 

US

E 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLL 

1 

0

A division of Polter Law Group 

2600 W Big Beaver 

| Ste L100 

Troy, Mi 48084

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 OCTOBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

Fenton Heights Apts LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Battle Creek,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002755

Please be advised that 25-002755 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing October 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. 25-002755

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 June 22, 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 June 22, 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 

June 22, 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 

October 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: November 17, 2025

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002755

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

Page 4

STAT

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 

 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002755 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0076-00-870-0 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Battle Creek, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

Stephen Polter 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2600 W. Big Beaver, Ste. L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

 

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) 

Attorney for Respondent 

10 North Division Street, Suite 216 

Battle Creek, MI 49014 

(269) 966-3385 

cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

Jenna Bagent deposes and says that on the 5th day of September 2025, she served a copy 

of an Appearance, Respondent’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, and a Proof of Service 

in the above-captioned matter on behalf of Respondent City by email, pursuant to MCR 2.107(G) 

as amended by Administrative Order 2020-08 effective July 26, 2021, upon Petitioner’s agent. 

 

 

Stephen Polter at email: spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

I declare that the above information is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: September 5, 2025 

 

/s/ Jenna Bagent 

 

Jenna Bagent 

Legal Assistant

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 

 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002755 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0076-00-870-0 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Battle Creek, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

Stephen Polter 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2600 W. Big Beaver, Ste. L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

 

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) 

Attorney for Respondent 

10 North Division Street, Suite 216 

Battle Creek, MI 49014 

(269) 966-3385 

cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov 

 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

 

 

Pursuant to MCR 7.204(G), C. Marcel Stoetzel, III, hereby enters his Appearance as 

counsel of record on behalf of Respondent City of Battle Creek in the above-captioned civil 

litigation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: September 5, 2025 

 

/s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III 

C. Marcel Stoetzel, III 

Deputy City Attorney 

City of Battle Creek 

10 North Division Street, Suite 216 

Battle Creek, MI 49014

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 

 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002755 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0076-00-870-0 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Battle Creek, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

Stephen Polter 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2600 W. Big Beaver, Ste. L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

 

 

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) 

Attorney for Respondent 

10 North Division Street, Suite 216 

Battle Creek, MI 49014 

(269) 966-3385 

cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov 

 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

 

NOW COMES RESPONDENT, City of Battle Creek, by and through its attorneys, and in 

answer to Petitioners’ Petition responds as follows: 

1. Property Parcel No: 0076-00-870-0 

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

addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 1 of its Petition. 

 

2. The property identified above is __X_real ___personal. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 2 of its Petition. 

 

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.) 

 

ANSWER: N/A.

Page 2

2 

 

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.) 

 

ANSWER: N/A. 

 

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

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

 

 

 

ANSWER: N/A. 

 

6. The property identified above is classified as 201 Comm. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 6 of its Petition. 

 

 

7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to 

Respondent’s __March __July __December Board of Review. 

 

ANSWER: N/A 

 

8. 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): 

 

 

 

 

ANSWER: N/A. 

 

9. 

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 of necessary): 

 

 

 

ANSWER: N/A

Page 3

3 

 

10. The property or properties at issue are located in Calhoun County. The property or 

properties’ address is: 

 

 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 10 of its Petition. 

 

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

government unit): City of Battle Creek. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 11 of its Petition. 

 

12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

 

 

 

 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 

12 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

13. 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 additional or loss __Yes __No 

______ uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

______ the property or properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL _______ 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 13 of its Petition. 

 

 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 14 of its Petition. 

 

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): 

 

ANSWER: N/A. 

50 Knapp Dr. 

32825 NW Hwy. 

FH, MI 48334

Page 4

4 

 

 

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 

$1,098,000 

$549,000 

$407,246 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 16 of its Petition. 

 

17. Petitioner contends that the value for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$800,000 

$400,000 

$400,000 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 17 of 

its Petition as they undervalue the subject property. 

 

18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$298,000 

$149,000 

$7,246 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 18 of its Petition. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANSWER: No answer is required to

Page 5

5

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. 25-002755

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Battle Creek (CALHOUN)

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

C.

M.I.

Marcel

Last Name

Stoetzel

Firm Name (if any)

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

10 N. Division St

Suite 207

City or Town

Battle Creek

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49014

Telephone Number

269-966-3385

Fax Number

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

cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

C. Marcel Stoetzel, III

/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 26 2025 

bE 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

: 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC 

Petitioner(s) 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No.25-002755 

City of BC 

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): 

10 Division St N, Battle Creek, MI 49014 

2. 

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

10 Division St N., ROOM 111, Battle Creek, MI 49014 

3. 

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

315 

W Green St, Marshall, MI 49068 

4. 

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

315 W Green St, Marshall, MI 49068 

5. 

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

44001 Garfield Rd #1100, Clinton Township, MI 48038 

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 

JUN 02 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

i 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC 

Petitioner(s) 

; 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 

Battle Creek 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 0076-00-870-0 

(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 

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 Calhoun 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

50 Knapp Dr. 

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

local governmental unit): Battle Creek 

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 

1,098,000 

549,000 

407,246 

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 

298,000 

149,000 

7,246 

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 

g Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

(] 

LE x) dui 

§') 

YAN 

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 8.0 2025 

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”) commetcial 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/Fruitport, 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 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. 

Warten Manor v Watren, 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. 

Springfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331) in the

Page 6

X

Page 7

®

Page 8

PO

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

Fenton Heights Apts LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002755

City Of Battle Creek, 

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 

JUN 02 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

i 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fenton Heights Apts LLC 

Petitioner(s) 

; 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 

Battle Creek 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 0076-00-870-0 

(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 

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 Calhoun 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

50 Knapp Dr. 

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

local governmental unit): Battle Creek 

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 

1,098,000 

549,000 

407,246 

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 

298,000 

149,000 

7,246 

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 

g Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

(] 

LE x) dui 

§') 

YAN 

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 8.0 2025 

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”) commetcial 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/Fruitport, 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 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. 

Warten Manor v Watren, 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. 

Springfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331) in the

Page 6

X

Page 7

®

Page 8

PO

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.