Franklin Quincy LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Holland, 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 

Franklin Quincy LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

 

Holland Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

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

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

 

Therefore, 

 

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

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

indicated. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values as provided in this 

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

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund as 

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

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

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

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

separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being 

refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall, unless 

otherwise indicated, bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment and 

the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the 

Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 

days after the issuance of this Consent Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest 

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

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8.66%. 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _______________________________ 

Entered: August 6, 2025 

jc 

 

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

61599620.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Franklin Quincy, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Holland Twp., 

Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1.

The parcel is located in Ottawa County. 

2.

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

3.

Property Parcel No: 70-16-05-300-033. 

4.

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

Review are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

Assessed 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$22,050,800

$11,025,400

$11,025,400

5.

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

purposes are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

State Equalized 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$10,000,000

6.

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

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

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

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

7.

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

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

2 

61599620.1 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that refunds shall be 

made payable jointly to Petitioner named herein and its counsel, 

Honigman LLP, and sent to Stewart L. Mandell, Honigman LLP, 660 

Woodward, Suite 2290, Detroit, MI 48226. Calculations of the refund 

amount shall also be sent to Petitioner’s counsel at the same address. 

HONIGMAN LLP

SCHOLTEN FANT

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By: /s/ Stewart L. Mandell 

By: /s/ Bradley J. Fisher 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Bradley J. Fisher (P64608) 

100 North Third Street 

Grand Haven, MI 49417 

(616) 842-3030 

bfisher@scholtenfant.com

Dated: August 5, 2025 

Dated: August 5, 2025

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

Page 1

61599620.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Franklin Quincy, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Holland Twp., 

Respondent. 

_____________________________/ 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

1.

The parcel is located in Ottawa County. 

2.

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

3.

Property Parcel No: 70-16-05-300-033. 

4.

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

Review are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

Assessed 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$22,050,800

$11,025,400

$11,025,400

5.

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

purposes are: 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash 

Value 

State Equalized 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2025

$20,000,000

$10,000,000

$10,000,000

6.

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

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

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

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

7.

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

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

2 

61599620.1 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that refunds shall be 

made payable jointly to Petitioner named herein and its counsel, 

Honigman LLP, and sent to Stewart L. Mandell, Honigman LLP, 660 

Woodward, Suite 2290, Detroit, MI 48226. Calculations of the refund 

amount shall also be sent to Petitioner’s counsel at the same address. 

HONIGMAN LLP

SCHOLTEN FANT

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

By: /s/ Stewart L. Mandell 

By: /s/ Bradley J. Fisher 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Bradley J. Fisher (P64608) 

100 North Third Street 

Grand Haven, MI 49417 

(616) 842-3030 

bfisher@scholtenfant.com

Dated: August 5, 2025 

Dated: August 5, 2025

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

Page 1

RECEIVED v1 

JUN 05 2025 rr 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Franklin Quincy, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

- 

7a 

v. 

MTT Docket No._A & 

+ OQ) | Le 21 

Par 

. 

70-16-05-300-033 

Holland Twp, 

arcel No. 70-16-05-3 

Respondent, 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Proof of Service 

Lisa Joseph states thaton 

<< / 2 = 76 26, she did serve a copy of Petitioner’s Petition, 

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

/S/ 9 racph 

Dated: 

S| 25) /[ 2 & 

Lisa Joseph

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

CLERK 

HOLLAND TWP. - OTTAWA 

353 N. 120TH AVENUE, PO BOX 8127 

HOLLAND, MI 49422-8127 

ASSESSOR 

HOLLAND TWP. - OTTAWA 

353 N. 120TH AVENUE, PO BOX 8127 

HOLLAND, MI 49422-8127 

AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

CLERK 

OTTAWA COUNTY 

12220 FILLMORE STREET, RM 130, PO BOX 310 

WEST OLIVE, MI 49460 

DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZATION 

OTTAWA COUNTY 

12220 FILLMORE STREET, RM 130, PO BOX 310 

WEST OLIVE, MI 49460 

SECRETARY OF SCHOOL BOARD 

HOLLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

320 WEST 24TH STREET 

HOLLAND, MI 49423 

STATE TREASURER 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

TREASURY BUILDING 

430 W. ALLEGAN ST. 

LANSING, MI 48922 

25-0085

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

25-0071 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Franklin Quincy, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Holland Twp., 

Respondent, 

MTT Docket No. ________ 

Parcel No. 70-16-05-300-033 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Petition 

Franklin Quincy, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, HONIGMAN LLP, says: 

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 55 Shuman Blvd., Suite 178, Naperville, IL 

60563. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 70-16-

05-300-033 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 13467 Quincy St., Holland Twp., located 

in Ottawa County, Michigan. 

2.

Respondent, Holland Twp. assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's 

Property. 

3.

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

$11,025,400 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $11,025,400, which will result in a state 

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

Page 2

2 

60678920.1 

4.

Petitioner's Property is classified as commercical improved. Petitioner's Property 

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

Property was originally designed to be used for commercial purposes. 

5.

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

value, and (d) uniformity. 

6.

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

relative to the value of a loss. 

7.

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property. 

8.

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed 

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful 

for the reasons that: 

(a) 

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

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

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, is at 

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

applicable statutes; 

(c) 

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

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

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

and, 

(d) 

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

the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection, and due process of law.

Page 3

3 

60678920.1 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the 

2025 assessed value, state equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner's Property from 

$11,025,400 to $10,000,000; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such 

reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is 

entitled. 

Dated: May 28, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Franklin Quincy LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-001650

Township Of Holland, 

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 10, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FRANKLIN QUINCY, LLC 

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No. 70-16-05-300-033 

Vs. 

HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

 

Respondent. 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Bradley J. Fisher, Esq. (P64608) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

SCHOLTEN FANT 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101. 

100 North Third Street, P. O. Box 454 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151. 

Grand Haven, MI 49417-0454 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

(616) 842-3030 

(313) 465-7420 

bfisher@scholtenfant.com 

 

slmandell(@honigman.com 

 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

PLEASE ENTER THE APPEARANCE of the law firm of Scholten 

Fant, as attorneys of 

 

Dated: June e 

, 2025 

 

Bradley J. Fisher (P63608) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Holland Charter Township

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 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FRANKLIN QUINCY, LLC 

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No. 70-16-05-300-033 

vs. 

HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES 

Respondent. 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Bradley J. Fisher, Esq. (P64608) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

SCHOLTEN FANT 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101. 

100 North Third Street, P. O. Box 454 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151. 

Grand Haven, MI 49417-0454 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

(616) 842-3030 

(313) 465-7420 

bfisher@scholtenfant.com 

 

slmandell(@honigman.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER 

TO PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

 

NOW COMES RESPONDENT, HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

by 

and 

through its attorneys, Scholten Fant, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition, states 

as follows: 

1. 

Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to 

form a belief, and therefore leaves the Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. 

Admitted. 

3. 

Admitted upon information and belief. 

4, 

Admitted upon information and belief.

Page 2

= 

Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to 

form a belief, and therefore leaves the Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. 

Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to 

form a belief, and therefore leaves the Petitioner to its proofs. 

ds 

Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to 

form a belief, and therefore leaves the Petitioner to its proofs. 

8. 

Denied as untrue. 

(a) 

Denied as untrue. 

(b) 

Denied as untrue. 

(c) 

Denied as untrue. 

(d) 

Denied as untrue. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent Holland Charter Township respectfully requests that the 

Tribunal deny Petitioner 

its requested 

relief, affirm Respondent’s assessment of the subject 

property, award Respondent its costs and attorney’s fees in responding to this action and award 

such further relief as it deems appropriate under the circumstances. 

 

Dated: June 5, 2025 

 

Bradley J. Wisher (P64608) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Holland Charter Township 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

NOW COMES HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys,

Page 3

Scholten Fant, and hereby offers the following Affirmative Defenses to the Petitioner’s Property 

Tax Petition: 

hi 

The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those 

methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 

“4 

2. 

4. 

3s 

6. 

Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. 

Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. 

The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, 

failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property such that its property taxes 

were delinquent or underpaid, such that Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, 

and, such that Respondent should be awarded damages. 

7. 

Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become 

known to it through discovery in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the 2024 assessed and 

taxable values as determined by Respondent, to dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its 

costs, attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just and equitable. 

Dated: June 5, 2025 

 

 

Bradley J. Fisher (P64608) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Holland Charter Township

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FRANKLIN QUINCY, LLC 

MTT Docket No. 25-001650 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No. 70-16-05-300-033 

VS. 

HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 

 

Respondent. 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Bradley J. Fisher, Esq. (P64608) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

SCHOLTEN FANT 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101. 

100 North Third Street, P. O. Box 454 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151. 

Grand Haven, MI 49417-0454 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

(616) 842-3030 

(313) 465-7420 

bfisher@scholtenfant.com 

 

slmandell@honigman.com 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the Respondent’s Answer to Property Tax Petition and 

Affirmative Defenses to Petitioner's Property Tax Petition was e-filed with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal and served upon all parties and/or attorneys of record to this action to their addresses as 

disclosed by the pleadings, on June 

5, 2025, via U.S. Mail First Class, from Grand Haven, 

Michigan, with postage thereon fully prepaid. 

Dated: 

June 5, 2025 

 

Legal Assistant to Bradley J. Fisher

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. 25-001650

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Holland (OTTAWA)

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

Bradley

M.I.

J.

Last Name

Fisher

Firm Name (if any)

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

100 N. Third Street

P. O. Box 454

City or Town

Grand Haven

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49417

Telephone Number

616-842-3030

Fax Number

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

bfisher@scholtenfant.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Bradley J. Fisher

/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

25-0071 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Franklin Quincy, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Holland Twp., 

Respondent, 

MTT Docket No. ________ 

Parcel No. 70-16-05-300-033 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

Petition 

Franklin Quincy, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, HONIGMAN LLP, says: 

1.

Petitioner's principal office address is 55 Shuman Blvd., Suite 178, Naperville, IL 

60563. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 70-16-

05-300-033 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 13467 Quincy St., Holland Twp., located 

in Ottawa County, Michigan. 

2.

Respondent, Holland Twp. assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's 

Property. 

3.

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

$11,025,400 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $11,025,400, which will result in a state 

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

Page 2

2 

60678920.1 

4.

Petitioner's Property is classified as commercical improved. Petitioner's Property 

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

Property was originally designed to be used for commercial purposes. 

5.

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

value, and (d) uniformity. 

6.

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

relative to the value of a loss. 

7.

No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property. 

8.

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed 

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful 

for the reasons that: 

(a) 

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

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

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, is at 

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

applicable statutes; 

(c) 

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

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

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

and, 

(d) 

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

the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection, and due process of law.

Page 3

3 

60678920.1 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the 

2025 assessed value, state equalized value, and taxable value of Petitioner's Property from 

$11,025,400 to $10,000,000; (ii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such 

reductions, plus interest and costs; and (iii) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is 

entitled. 

Dated: May 28, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By:

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

Franklin Quincy, LLC

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

55 Shuman Blvd.

City or Town

Naperville

State

Illinois

ZIP Code

60563

Telephone Number

2485668300

Fax Number

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

ljoseph@honigman.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Stewart

M.I.

Last Name

Mandell

Firm Name (if any)

Honigman LLP

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

2290 First National Building

660 Woodward Avenue

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

313-465-7420

Fax Number

313-465-7421

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

slmandell@honigman.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

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

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Holland (MISSAUKEE)

County

Missaukee

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

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

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

70-16-05-300-033

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review:

11025400

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

11025400

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

20000000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

10000000

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

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest 

State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Stewart L. Mandell

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.