Henkel Corporation, Petitioner Vs. City Of Warren, Respondent

Page 1

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 0 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ears 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

ACTING DIRECTOR 

SUZANNE SONNEBORN 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Henkel Corporation 

i 

Petitioner(s) 

\ 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002423 

City Of Warren 

i 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. 

| wish this Tribunal to reconsider The appeal and dismissal for MOAHR Docket No. 

& 

25-002423 

2. 

Good cause exists to grant reconsideration because: 

In response 

to our order io dismiss MTT Docket Noo 

25002423, we would like to file a motion 

for 

consideration 1o kindly ssk for you reconsideration in this matter because hare wars onion lechnioal 

sues sncouniared in submitting the anginal appeal on the o-Ne system, 

Please ses Our ACoDmponying 

covir letter for copies of emails thal are evidence of these technical 4sues 

3. 

| ask this Tribunal to grant my request for reconsideration. 

Ciining Ozboine 

Party/Répresentative (sign here) 

Jimmy Osborne 

[Print/type name of person signing]

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Henkel Corporation, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 25-002423 

City Of Warren, 

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 205.7354, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall aiso 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: August 18, 2025 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

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

Page 3

/ Crowe 

Crowe LLP 

Independent Member Crowe Global 

2200 Ross Ave. 

Suite 4200E 

Dallas, TX 75201-2767 

Tel +1 214 777 5200 

Www.crowe.com 

Jimmy Osborne 

Crowe LLP 

PO BOX 7 

South Bend, IN 46624 

September 2, 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

611 W. OTTAWA ST. 

LANSING, MI 48933 

RE: 

Motion For Reconsideration for MTT Docket No. 25-002423 

Greetings: 

In response to your order to dismiss MTT Docket No. 25-002423, we would like to file a motion for 

reconsideration to kindly ask for your reconsideration in this matter because there were on-line 

technical issues encountered in submitting the original appeal on the e-file system. We initially 

attempted to create a profile on 06/02/2025, which was the due date, to submit our appeal but it 

would not allow us to do so, and we were in contact with the Michigan Tax Tribunal by the 

afternoon to try and resolve the issue, but even they could not get the e-file system to set up a 

profile for us. 

The e-file system would not allow us to create a profile for submitting our appeal and these issues 

ultimately required the Michigan Tax Tribunal IT department to get involved to assist in setting up 

a profile so that we could proceed and submit our appeal. 

Please note that we provided a letter of 

explanation for the late filing in the original e-file we submitted, along with the appeal 

documentation and evidence. However, we would like to submit this further response to the order 

to dismiss the appeal. We have included screen shots of the email correspondence with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal as evidence of the technical issues we encountered. 

Please find enclosed 

in this mailing the following: 

-Cover Letter with evidence of prior email correspondence 

-Motion for Reconsideration 

-Order of Dismissal 

-Notice of Docket Number 

-Check for $50.00 For Entire Tribunal payable to the State of Michigan

Page 4

E-filing 

i 

© 

© Rey 

| © 

Rep 

Al 

| 

> 

Ford 

| [8] [ere 

| 

LARA-taxtib <LARA-taxtrib@michigangov> 

[©] 

© Realy 

| © Repl 

| > Forward ||] 

| 

To 

© Ostome, limmy 

Tue 6302025 

117 PIA 

Retention Plt 

4 ay Ema Retention 

(1 yer, 6 month) 

bates 12226 

(© You epies 

to his message on 5472025 $03 

[cAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crowe. Da not click links, op 

or forward unless you recognize the sender and know the content Is safe. 

Good Afternoon, 

We cannot figure out why itis saying the user already exists. We are now going to try to make your e-filing account and see what happens. We will need your mailing address to get the account 

registered. If you would prefer giving this information over the phone that is fine as well. 

Thank you, 

Savauual S 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Ema. 

1524 

MTT Main Line: (517) 335-9760 

Website: 

Michigan.gov/ 

Get personalized voter-information on early voting and other topics at Michigan, gov/Vote. 

New User Registration 

[©] 

© 

Reply 

| © RepyAl 

| = Foruwid 

| [| 

[+ 

VIed 6412025 150 At 

NoReply-MOAHR@michigan 

gov 

lo. 

© Osborne, fmmy 

Cc 

Hoeply MOAHRG michigan gov 

Retention Poly 545 day Emil Retention 

(1 yew, 6 mont 

Ewes 12002005 

(0) Tou repiestoths mestage on

Page 5

R

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 

Henkel Corporation, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002423 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On September 4, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on August 19, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they encountered technical issues with the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system. Petitioner sought to create an account on June 2, 2025, and sought assistance 

to do so but was not able to complete the process on that date. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that it has no 

authority over Petitioner’s appeal. The petition for the subject’s 2025 assessment was 

not filed by the statutory deadline of June 2, 2025.1 The petition was filed on June 13, 

2025. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction requirement that a commercial 

valuation appeal be filed with the Tribunal by a set deadline. MCL 205.735a controls 

the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. Petitioner contends that the appeal was not 

timely due to an issue creating an account on the Tribunal’s e-filing system. However, 

the Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.2 

 

Given the above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the 

order that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different 

disposition if the error was corrected.3 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

1 MCL 205.735a(6), (8). 

2 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 

3 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002423 

Page 2 of 2 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be 

filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: September 17, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

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 

SEP 1 0 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ears 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

ACTING DIRECTOR 

SUZANNE SONNEBORN 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Henkel Corporation 

i 

Petitioner(s) 

\ 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002423 

City Of Warren 

i 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. 

| wish this Tribunal to reconsider The appeal and dismissal for MOAHR Docket No. 

& 

25-002423 

2. 

Good cause exists to grant reconsideration because: 

In response 

to our order io dismiss MTT Docket Noo 

25002423, we would like to file a motion 

for 

consideration 1o kindly ssk for you reconsideration in this matter because hare wars onion lechnioal 

sues sncouniared in submitting the anginal appeal on the o-Ne system, 

Please ses Our ACoDmponying 

covir letter for copies of emails thal are evidence of these technical 4sues 

3. 

| ask this Tribunal to grant my request for reconsideration. 

Ciining Ozboine 

Party/Répresentative (sign here) 

Jimmy Osborne 

[Print/type name of person signing]

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Henkel Corporation, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 25-002423 

City Of Warren, 

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 205.7354, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall aiso 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: August 18, 2025 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

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

Page 3

/ Crowe 

Crowe LLP 

Independent Member Crowe Global 

2200 Ross Ave. 

Suite 4200E 

Dallas, TX 75201-2767 

Tel +1 214 777 5200 

Www.crowe.com 

Jimmy Osborne 

Crowe LLP 

PO BOX 7 

South Bend, IN 46624 

September 2, 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

611 W. OTTAWA ST. 

LANSING, MI 48933 

RE: 

Motion For Reconsideration for MTT Docket No. 25-002423 

Greetings: 

In response to your order to dismiss MTT Docket No. 25-002423, we would like to file a motion for 

reconsideration to kindly ask for your reconsideration in this matter because there were on-line 

technical issues encountered in submitting the original appeal on the e-file system. We initially 

attempted to create a profile on 06/02/2025, which was the due date, to submit our appeal but it 

would not allow us to do so, and we were in contact with the Michigan Tax Tribunal by the 

afternoon to try and resolve the issue, but even they could not get the e-file system to set up a 

profile for us. 

The e-file system would not allow us to create a profile for submitting our appeal and these issues 

ultimately required the Michigan Tax Tribunal IT department to get involved to assist in setting up 

a profile so that we could proceed and submit our appeal. 

Please note that we provided a letter of 

explanation for the late filing in the original e-file we submitted, along with the appeal 

documentation and evidence. However, we would like to submit this further response to the order 

to dismiss the appeal. We have included screen shots of the email correspondence with the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal as evidence of the technical issues we encountered. 

Please find enclosed 

in this mailing the following: 

-Cover Letter with evidence of prior email correspondence 

-Motion for Reconsideration 

-Order of Dismissal 

-Notice of Docket Number 

-Check for $50.00 For Entire Tribunal payable to the State of Michigan

Page 4

E-filing 

i 

© 

© Rey 

| © 

Rep 

Al 

| 

> 

Ford 

| [8] [ere 

| 

LARA-taxtib <LARA-taxtrib@michigangov> 

[©] 

© Realy 

| © Repl 

| > Forward ||] 

| 

To 

© Ostome, limmy 

Tue 6302025 

117 PIA 

Retention Plt 

4 ay Ema Retention 

(1 yer, 6 month) 

bates 12226 

(© You epies 

to his message on 5472025 $03 

[cAUTION: This email originated from outside of Crowe. Da not click links, op 

or forward unless you recognize the sender and know the content Is safe. 

Good Afternoon, 

We cannot figure out why itis saying the user already exists. We are now going to try to make your e-filing account and see what happens. We will need your mailing address to get the account 

registered. If you would prefer giving this information over the phone that is fine as well. 

Thank you, 

Savauual S 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Ema. 

1524 

MTT Main Line: (517) 335-9760 

Website: 

Michigan.gov/ 

Get personalized voter-information on early voting and other topics at Michigan, gov/Vote. 

New User Registration 

[©] 

© 

Reply 

| © RepyAl 

| = Foruwid 

| [| 

[+ 

VIed 6412025 150 At 

NoReply-MOAHR@michigan 

gov 

lo. 

© Osborne, fmmy 

Cc 

Hoeply MOAHRG michigan gov 

Retention Poly 545 day Emil Retention 

(1 yew, 6 mont 

Ewes 12002005 

(0) Tou repiestoths mestage on

Page 5

R

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

Henkel Corporation, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002423

City Of Warren,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002423

Page 2 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 19, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

Henkel Corporation, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002423

City Of Warren,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002423

Page 4 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 19, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 5

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN,

Page 6

MTT Docket No.

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 

_____________________________, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1.

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________

(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 ___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 _________________________

7.

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

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review.

HENKEL CORPORATION

12-13-28-300-015

X

X

N/A

INDUSTRIAL-IMPROVED

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

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):

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 if necessary):

10.

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The

property or properties’ address is:

11.

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

local governmental unit): ________________________________________

12.

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is:

13.

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

________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 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL ______ 

14.

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________

According to the assessor's office, complex commercial properties, like the 

subject, are typically referred to the Michigan Tax Tribunal from the Board Of 

Review.

N/A

Macomb

23343 SHERWOOD, Warren, MI 48091

City of Warren

One Henkel Way, Rocky Hill, CT 06067

X

2025

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

17.

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

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

18.

The values in dispute for the property identified above are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

19.

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

20.

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary):

N/A

2025

7,483,420

3,741,710

2,208,263

2025

6,188,608

3,094,304

1,826,180

2025

1,294,812

647,406

382,083

True Cash Value to be reduced to $6,188,608, and State Equalized Value reduced to 

$3,094,304.

The subject property is over valued. A cost approach based on the Marshall & Swift

handbook supports a reduction in the subject's assessment. Recent nearby sales of

similar properties supports a reduction in the subject's assessment. An Income

Approach supports a reduction in the subject's assessment.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

Email Address: _________________________________________________________ 

Mailing Address: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone Number: ________________________________________ 

Date: _________________________________________________________________ 

Jimmy Osborne

Jimmy.Osborne@Crowe.com

320 E JEFFERSON BLVD. PO BOX 7, SOUTH BEND, IN 46624-007

346-308-8511

06/02/2025

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

Henkel Corporation, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002423

City Of Warren, 

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: August 18, 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

To the Tax Tribunal, 

 

We are submitting our appeal late because there were IT issues that would not allow us to log into the 

system. 

 

 

Thank you, 

 

 

Jimmy Osborne 

Crowe LLP 

Jimmy.Osborne@Crowe.com 

713-366-8557

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

Assessment Analysis

 Independent Member Crowe Global

 320 East Jefferson Boulevard

Post Office Box 7

South Bend, Indiana 46624-0007

Tel +1 346-308-8514

www.crowe.com 

Property Owner

HENKEL CORPORATION

Location

23343 SHERWOOD

Account / Parcel

12-13-28-300-015

City

Warren

Site Code

N/A

County

Macomb 

Tax Year

2025

State

MI

Price PSF

Net Rentable Area

194,476 Sq.Ft. Improvement

6,710,020

$ 

34.50

$ 

Land Size (AC)

15.09 Acres Land

773,400

$ 

1.18

$ 

Year Built

1959 Total Market

7,483,420

$ 

38.48

$ 

6,188,606

$ 

31.82

$ 

Indicated Value

$ /SF

6,195,655

$ 

31.86

$ 

6,179,513

$ 

31.78

$ 

6,188,301

$ 

31.82

$ 

Indicated Value

$ /SF

6,187,823

$ 

31.82

$ 

6,188,301

$ 

31.82

$ 

Allocation Amount

Allocation %

2,478,262

$ 

40.0%

1,853,854

$ 

30.0%

1,856,490

$ 

30.0%

6,188,606

$ 

100.0%

Property Notes:

► The subject property is over valued. 

► A cost approach based on the Marshall & Swift handbook supports a reduction in the subject's assessment. 

► Recent nearby sales of similar properties supports a reduction in  the subject's assessment.

► An Income Approach supports a reduction in  the subject's assessment.

► The Opinion of Value based on allocation supports a reduction the subject's assessment. 

Subject Property

Valuation Method Indicators

Value Correlation

Opinion of Market Value

Assessor Description & Assessment

Valuation Method

Assessment

Value Comparisons

Valuation Method

Cost Approach Estimate

Sales Comparison Approach Estimate

Income Approach Estimate

All Approaches Mean (Average)

Property Description

All Approaches Median (Middle)

Comparison Method

Cost Approach Allocation

Sales Approach Allocation

Income Approach Allocation

Page 2

Property Owner

HENKEL CORPORATION

Account

12-13-28-300-015

Site Code

N/A

Location

23343 SHERWOOD

City

Warren

County

Macomb 

State

MI

Subject Images

Page 3

Rec Owner 

Address 

Parcel 

Zoning 

Bldg Area 

Land Area 

8 

A 

(=% 

Rh 

5 

I<! 

io 

oM12US 

HENKEL CORPORATION 

1 Henkel Way, Rocky Hill, CT 06067 

12-13-28-300-015 

Mz 

194,476 SF 

15.09 AC 

oMIUS 

any 

PO 

ee — 

Ready Ave 

@® 

— 

Ave

Page 4

Subject

23343 SHERWOOD

Type 

Address

23343 SHERWOOD

Class

Account

12-13-28-300-015

Type

Building Area

194,476 Sq.Ft.

Year Built

1953, '55, 58, '59, '89, '91, '95, 2005

Subject Actual Age

66 Actual

Year Constructed - 1959

Land Size

15.09 Acres

Subject Effective Age

33 Effective

Effective Year - 1992

Property Type by Dollar / Square Foot

48.00

$ 

Improvement Square Footage

194,476 Sq.Ft.

Composite Cost Multiplier

0.97

Primary Improvement Replacement Cost New (RCN)

9,054,802.56

$ 

Percent Good from Marshall & Swift

59.00%

Primary Structure Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD)

Other Improvements

Size

$/Unit

RCN

Age

% Good

Value

Other Improvements

109,829.00

$ 

33 Effective

59%

64,799.11

$ 

Surface Parking

125 Spaces

2,070.00

$ 

258,750.00

$ 

20 Effective

32%

82,800.00

$ 

Dock High Bay Sq.Ft.

7,700 Sq.Ft.

30.50

$ 

234,850.00

$ 

20 Effective

32%

75,152.00

$ 

Other Improvements 

Obsolescence Adjustments

Type

Obsolescence Adjustments

Type

Obsolescence Adjustments

Type

Obsolescence Adjustments

Total -->

 

Land Value

Total -->

Notes: 

Land Value

142,830.00

$ 

Cost Approach Indicated Value /SF

Cost Approach Indicated Value

5,342,333.51

$ 

Total -->

222,751.11

$ 

Cost Approach

Primary Structure RCNLD

Light Manufacturing

C

Low Cost

Primary Structure Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD)

31.86

$ 

6,195,655

$ 

Curable Parking Deficiency

142,830.00

$ 

-

$ 

-

$ 

773,400.00

$ 

Subject Property Cost Approach Indicated Value

Obsolescence Adjustments

Land Improvements

Page 5

Address

City

State

Type

 Building SF

 Grade

Price

Sale Date

Sale Status

Price / SQF

Time Adjust 

Sale Price

Time Adj. Price 

Per SF

23343 SHERWOOD

Warren

MI

Industrial

194,476 Sq.Ft.

C

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Days before 

Assess Date

Annual % of 

Time

Annual Inflation Rate

Adjustment

Adjustment 

Factor

Time Adjust Sale 

Price

Assessed Value

Assessed 

Value PSF

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

7,483,420

$ 

38.48

$ 

Address

City

 State

 Type

 Building SF

 Grade

 Price

Sale Date

Sale Status

Price / SQF

Time Adjust 

Sale Price

Time Adj. Price 

Per SF

12350 E Nine Mile Rd

Warren

MI

Industrial

210,567 Sq.Ft.

C

8,425,000

$ 

3/13/2023

SOLD

40.01

$ 

8,577,342

$ 

40.73

$ 

1721 W Pleasant St

River Rouge

MI

Industrial

134,157 Sq.Ft.

C

1,925,000

$ 

5/7/2021

SOLD

14.35

$ 

1,995,408

$ 

14.87

$ 

18450 15 Mile Rd

Fraser

MI

Industrial

185,521 Sq.Ft.

C

7,600,000

$ 

6/10/2021

SOLD

40.97

$ 

7,870,893

$ 

42.43

$ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sales Date

Assessment Date 

Days before 

Assess Date

Annual % of 

Time

Annual Inflation Rate

Adjustment

Adjustment 

Factor

Time Adjust Sale 

Price

Average Price 

Per SF

Median Price 

Per SF

Adjustment 

Mode

3/13/2023

1/1/2025

660

1.808219178

1.0%

1.80822%

1.0180822

 

8,577,342

$ 

Sales

5/7/2021

1/1/2025

1335

3.657534247

1.0%

3.65753%

1.0365753

 

1,995,408

$ 

31.78

$ 

40.01

$ 

Unadjusted

6/10/2021

1/1/2025

1301

3.564383562

1.0%

3.56438%

1.0356438

 

7,870,893

$ 

Per SF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32.68

$ 

40.73

$ 

Adjusted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Per SF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment Date 1/1/2025

Annual Inflation Rate 1.0%

Annual Days 365

N/A

194,476 Sq.Ft.

31.78

$ 

6,179,513

$ 

Notes: 

Comparable Sales Time Adjustments

Subject Property Time Adjustment

Comparable Property Sales

Central Measures

Sales Comparison Approach 

Subject Square Footage:

Subject Sales Price:

Adjusted Average Sales Price Per SF

Sales Comparison Indicated Value

Subject Property

Subject Property Sales Comparison Approach Indicated Value

Assessed Value

Page 6

Owner:

HENKEL CORPORATION

Net Rentable Area:

Location:

23343 SHERWOOD

Year Built:

Account:

12-13-28-300-015

Market Rent:

PSF

% EGI

Rent

X

NRA

=

Income

Potential Gross Income:

$7.00 Per Sq.Ft. X 194,476 Sq.Ft. =

1,361,332

$ 

7.00

$ 

105.3%

Expense Recovery:

0.00% =

-

$ 

-

$ 

0.0%

Concessions:

0.00% =

-

$ 

-

$ 

0.0%

Secondary Income:

0.00% =

-

$ 

-

$ 

0.0%

Total Secondary & Other Income:

=

-

$ 

-

$

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 

_____________________________, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1.

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________

(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 ___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 _________________________

7.

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

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review.

HENKEL CORPORATION

12-13-28-300-015

X

X

N/A

INDUSTRIAL-IMPROVED

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

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):

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 if necessary):

10.

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The

property or properties’ address is:

11.

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

local governmental unit): ________________________________________

12.

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is:

13.

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

________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 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL ______ 

14.

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________

According to the assessor's office, complex commercial properties, like the 

subject, are typically referred to the Michigan Tax Tribunal from the Board Of 

Review.

N/A

Macomb

23343 SHERWOOD, Warren, MI 48091

City of Warren

One Henkel Way, Rocky Hill, CT 06067

X

2025

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

17.

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

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

18.

The values in dispute for the property identified above are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

19.

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

20.

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary):

N/A

2025

7,483,420

3,741,710

2,208,263

2025

6,188,608

3,094,304

1,826,180

2025

1,294,812

647,406

382,083

True Cash Value to be reduced to $6,188,608, and State Equalized Value reduced to 

$3,094,304.

The subject property is over valued. A cost approach based on the Marshall & Swift

handbook supports a reduction in the subject's assessment. Recent nearby sales of

similar properties supports a reduction in the subject's assessment. An Income

Approach supports a reduction in the subject's assessment.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

Signature of Petitioner’s Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

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

______________________________________________________________________ 

Email Address: _________________________________________________________ 

Mailing Address: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

Telephone Number: ________________________________________ 

Date: _________________________________________________________________ 

Jimmy Osborne

Jimmy.Osborne@Crowe.com

320 E JEFFERSON BLVD. PO BOX 7, SOUTH BEND, IN 46624-007

346-308-8511

06/02/2025

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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: Individual

First Name/Company Name

Jimmy

M.I.

Last Name

Osborne

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

320 E JEFFERSON BLVD.

PO BOX 7

City or Town

SOUTH BEND

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46624

Telephone Number

7133668557

Fax Number

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

jimmy.osborne@crowe.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jimmy

M.I.

Last Name

Osborne

Firm Name (if any)

Crowe LLP

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

320 E Jefferson Blvd.

PO BOX 7

City or Town

South Bend

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46624

Telephone Number

713-366-8557

Fax Number

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

jimmy.osborne@crowe.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]

23343 SHERWOOD

Warren

Michigan

48091

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Warren (MACOMB)

County

Macomb

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:

12-13-28-300-015

Classification of Property: Real 

Industrial

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

3741710

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

2208263

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

6188608

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

3094304

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

1826180

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/ Jimmy Osborne

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.