John Hanley, Petitioner V Township Of Leelanau, 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 

John Hanley, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

 

Leelanau Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on September 11, 

2025. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the below 

‘Date Entered by Tribunal’ to notify the Tribunal and the opposing party in writing, by 

mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why 

they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., exceptions).” 

 

Neither party has filed exceptions to the POJ. 

 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the testimony and evidence submitted 

and made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ’s determination that 

Petitioner did not meet their burden of going forward with the evidence is supported by 

the record in this case and applicable statutory authority. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ and finds that dismissal of this case is 

warranted.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

This Order resolves the last pending claim and closes this 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 

 

1 See MCL 205.726.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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 

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 _____________________________ 

Entered: November 7, 2025 

ejg 

 

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

 

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 

 

John Hanley, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

 

Leelanau Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Nancy Klukowski, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephone 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

August 5, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

John Hanley 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Barry Wauldron, Assessor 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR) and did so to the 2024 March BOR. The BOR did not change the 

assessment. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on May 30, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 10, 2024. 

 

On April 23, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for failing 

to appear at an April 22, 2025 hearing. Respondent subsequently cured its default. On 

May 19, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order setting aside Respondent’s default. 

 

The amount of the state equalized value (SEV) or taxable value (TV) in dispute, as set 

forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the 

Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is 

included in this proceeding.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 2 of 8 

 

a) Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value 

(TCV). 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

b) Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the 

lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property 

(i.e., property not previously assessed).10 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 042-150-001-01 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$975,000

$487,500

$487,500

2025

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

 

 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 

10 See MCL

Page 3

MTT

Page 4

MTT

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No.: 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone hearing to be conducted as follows. Hearings are 

generally 30 minutes in length. 

HEARING DATE:

August 5, 2025 

HEARING TIME:

10:30 AM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

68978867 

 

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join 

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You 

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call 

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a 

party or parties in default.

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document.

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento.

এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আইনি দলিল, অনুগ্রহ করে কেউ দলিলটিকে অনুবাদ করুন।

.ةقيثولا مجرتت صخش كيدل ىجري ةماه ةينوناق ةقيثو وه اذه

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang 

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Page 2 of 12

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et 

seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. A party is expected to 

exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses and administrative law judges, which 

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and dressing in appropriate clothing for in-person 

hearings. The hearing may be recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record, 

unless otherwise provided for by the Tribunal.

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing. 

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the 

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness 

testimony.

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to the Tribunal 

and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were previously 

submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the documents are not 

timely submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be 

submitted by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the opposing party by 

mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to 

the opposing party or their authorized representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that 

party or authorized representative, unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other 

documentation identifying a different mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after 

the Notice of Hearing if they were previously

Page 3

MTT

Page 4

MT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

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 

John Hanley, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

 

Leelanau Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER SETTING ASIDE RESPONDENT’S DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order on 

April 23, 2025, holding Respondent in default for failing to appear at a duly-noticed 

hearing. Respondent was required to file information and documentation justifying their 

absence within 14 days to assist the Tribunal in determining whether the scheduling of a 

default hearing was warranted.1 Respondent filed a response on May 6, 2025, 

indicating the assessor had just started their job and was unaware of the hearing 

scheduled in this matter. The Tribunal has considered the response and finds that 

Respondent’s failure to appear was not willful, and they have no history of refusing to 

comply with Tribunal orders or of deliberate delay. Respondent timely responded to the 

default order and allowing them continued participation in this matter will not prejudice 

Petitioner. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s default is SET ASIDE. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing shall be rescheduled in the normal course 

of scheduling. 

 

 

Entered: May 19, 2025 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

cs 

 

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 

 

 

 

1 See TTR 237 and Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010).

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

“ages 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

John Hanley 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.24-003393 

Township of Leelanau 

, 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Barry Wauldron, Assessor 

states that on May 06, 2025 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Explanation 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

John Hanley 

226 E. 5th st. 

Northport, MI 49670 

Bary Wedron 

[Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] 

Barry Wauldron 

[Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy] 

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

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

May 06, 2025 

 

 

Patricia L. Halm, Chair 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

 

Cc: 

John Hanley (Petitioner) 

 

 

 

Docket #: 24-003393 

 

 

 

RE: 

Explanation justifying the absence at the April 22, 2025 scheduled hearing. 

 

 

I am the new Assessor of Record for Leelanau Township. I assumed the duties from the 

outgoing assessor, Christy Brow, on or about April 16th, 2025. 

 

During the transition I received incomplete information about the number and status of 

active tribunal petitions, and did not check the docket quickly enough to learn about the 

above hearing on April 22nd. I became aware of the case upon receiving the order of 

default. 

 

I respectfully request the respondent be restored from default and a new hearing date be 

scheduled. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Barry Wauldron, Assessor 

Leelanau 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

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Respondent failed to 

appear for the duly-noticed Hearing scheduled for April 22, 2025. Thus, this case is 

subject to dismissal or a default hearing.1 Prior to dismissal or the scheduling of a 

default hearing, however, the Tribunal finds that placing the absent party in default and 

ordering an explanation and documentation justifying the absence at the proceeding is 

appropriate.2 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the absent party is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall submit information and 

documentation as directed above. The response must be filed with the Tribunal and 

served on the opposing party or the opposing party’s authorized representative within 

14 days of entry of this Order.3 

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this case or the scheduling 

of a default hearing, as provided by TTR 237.

By______________________________

Entered: April 23, 2025

 Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

1 See TTR 247 & TTR 275.

2 See TTR 231 and See Grimm v Department of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010).

3 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393 

Page 2 of 4

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Respondent failed to 

appear for the duly-noticed Hearing scheduled for April 22, 2025. Thus, this case is 

subject to dismissal or a default hearing.4 Prior to dismissal or the scheduling of a 

default hearing, however, the

Page 4

MTT

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

The Michigan constitution requires property to be uniformly assessed at 50% of the usual 

selling price, also referred to as true cash value. As depicted in the market comparison, it 

does not appear there is a uniform application of assessing property of homes located near 

our home (parcel # 042-150-001-01). Given the assessment of our home of $678,400, the 

true cash value would be $1,356,800. There is no comparison of substantiating that price in 

our immediate location of the Village of Northport. The most recent sale of a home (parcel# 

042-400-008-00) in 2024 was $950,000 for a stated five-bedroom home and also located on 

the water. Our home has three bedrooms. Further, our immediate neighbor (parcel # 042-

150-003-01) is assessed only 0.69% higher while their taxable value is lower by $111,413 or 

26.25%. Their home is much larger and twice the size of our home. 

In preparing the market comparison extracted from the Leelanau County property search 

function on their website, one feature that is consistent is newer construction homes are 

assessed and have a taxable value significantly higher than existing homes, except for one 

newer construction home. I brought this to the attention of the Board of Review (“Board”) in 

the appeals hearing. The answer from the chairperson was surprising. He explained to me 

that since my house was new construction with finishes that would be considerably higher 

than existing homes. Further, he stated that homes in the market comparison I provided to 

the Board have depreciated over time and therefore are assessed at a lower value. My 

answer to him was that they are highly likely to not know the finishes inside every home and 

they can be similar to mine from renovations that have occurred. In addition, I expressed to 

the Board that by using the Chairperson’s logic of depreciation, my home will depreciate over 

time and therefore my Assessed Value and Taxable Value will come down. That certainly will 

never be the case. 

On the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation and Property Classification submitted to us 

for 2024, the assessor’s reason for the changes in values was market adjustment. If that is 

the case, what is the justification for the market adjustment? There does not seem to be one 

to me when looking at the market comparison. There clearly is no uniform application used 

by the assessor, nor has one been explained to me. 

This pattern is unfortunately continuing for 2025 where the Notice of Assessment, Taxable 

Valuation and Property Classification increased the Assessed Value by 36.14% to $923,600 

($1,847,200 True Cash Value) and the Taxable Value by 3.09% to $552,533. There was no 

reason stated on the form. In two years (2024 and 2025) our Assessed Valuation has gone 

up by 80.96% and the Taxable Value has increased by 8.26%.

Page 2

Market Comparison

Notes

Address

Parcel Number

Current Year 

(2025)

Last Year 

(2024)

% Change

Prior Year 

(2023)

% Change

Current Year 

(2025)

Last Year 

(2024)

% Change

Prior Year 

(2023)

% Change

Current Year 

(2025)

Last Year 

(2024)

% Change

Prior Year 

(2023)

% Change

2025

2024

construction finalized and occupancy of the home in Nov 2022

226 E 5th St

042-150-001-01

552,533

 

535,920

 

3.10%

510,400

 

5.00%

923,600

 

678,400

 

36.14%

510,400

 

32.92%

923,600

 

678,400

 

36.14%

510,400

 

32.92%

60%

79%

immediate neighbor to the south and house is twice our sq ft; newer construction

227 E 4th St

042-150-003-01

424,507

 

392,137

 

8.25%

683,100

 

532,100

 

28.38%

683,100

 

532,100

 

28.38%

62%

214 E 4th St

042-150-004-00

231,690

 

214,023

 

8.25%

441,800

 

334,400

 

32.12%

441,800

 

334,400

 

32.12%

52%

newer construction; neighbor adjacent to my home on the west

10149 N Shore Dr

042-350-187-10

240,786

Page 3

er

Page 4

re

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No.: 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone hearing to be conducted as follows. Hearings are 

generally 30 minutes in length. 

HEARING DATE:

April 22, 2025 

HEARING TIME:

10:30 AM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

888752493 

 

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join 

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You 

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call 

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a 

party or parties in default.

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document.

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento.

এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আইনি দলিল, অনুগ্রহ করে কেউ দলিলটিকে অনুবাদ করুন।

.ةقيثولا مجرتت صخش كيدل ىجري ةماه ةينوناق ةقيثو وه اذه

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang 

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Page 2 of 12

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et 

seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. A party is expected to 

exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses and administrative law judges, which 

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and dressing in appropriate clothing for in-person 

hearings. The hearing may be recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record, 

unless otherwise provided for by the Tribunal.

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing. 

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the 

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness 

testimony.

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to the Tribunal 

and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were previously 

submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the documents are not 

timely submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be 

submitted by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the opposing party by 

mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to 

the opposing party or their authorized representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that 

party or authorized representative, unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other 

documentation identifying a different mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after 

the Notice of Hearing if they were previously

Page 3

MTT

Page 4

M

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER VACATING DEFAULT ORDER

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

Tribunal entered an Order on October,24 2024, holding Respondent in default. The 

Tribunal erred in the entry of that Order. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Order of Default is VACATED.

By _________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 24, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER VACATING DEFAULT ORDER

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

Tribunal entered an Order on October,24 2024, holding Respondent in default. The 

Tribunal erred in the entry of that Order. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Order of Default is VACATED.

By _________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 24, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER VACATING DEFAULT ORDER

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

Tribunal entered an Order on October,24 2024, holding Respondent in default. The 

Tribunal erred in the entry of that Order. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Order of Default is VACATED.

By _________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 24, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Respondent has failed to file an answer. See TTR 279. Respondent must file an answer 

within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Small Claims answer forms can be found on 

our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this Order.i 

Failure to comply with this Order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).

By:_______________________________

Entered: October 24, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Page 2 of 6

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

i “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 219(5)

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Respondent has failed to file an answer. See TTR 279. Respondent must file an answer 

within 14 days of the entry of this Order. Small Claims answer forms can be found on 

our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated 

above, within 14 days of the entry of this Order.ii 

Failure to comply with this Order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a 

motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Page 4

Page 5

STA

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 

OCT 15 2024 

MICHIGAN Tax TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24- (ON 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

231-386-5138 

First Name: 

M.L: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Leelanau Township 

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

County: 

PO BOX 338 

Leelanau County 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Northport 

MI 

149670 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

231-386-7909 

n/a 

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

Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Informatio 

First Name: 

Christy 

ML: 

Last Name: 

M 

Brow 

Firm Name (if any): Michigan Asses sing Service Inc 

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

PO Box 338 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Northport 

Ml 

149670 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

231-386-5138 

231-386-7909 

assessor@leelanautownshipmi.gov 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

vas 

O 

No 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

O Yes 

[No 

[J Not Applicable 

If not, list which parcels adjoin one another.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Property was assessed according to State Tax Commission rules, regulations & 

guidelines and MCL. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [ Yes 

[} No 

if yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 

[4] March 

[1 July 

[} December 

if no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [| Yas 

8 No 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? [i] Yes 

[Wm] No 

if yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [Hm] Yes 

[Hl] No 

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

IN] Yes 

Ono 

if so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption ata BOR? [] Yes 

[J No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: O March 

0 July 

Od December 

List the date the BOR denied Petitioner's Poverty Exemption: 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption at a BOR? O Yes 

O No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: O March 

O July 

O December 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you believe the classification should be: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

YS -

Page 4

Par

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the 

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website. 

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small 

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will 

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email 

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of 

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be 

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important 

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy 

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents 

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of 

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the 

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the 

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the 

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this 

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference 

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a 

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with 

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent 

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation. 

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between 

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a 

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a 

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent 

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Page 2 of 6

If you have any questions, please contact the Tribunal by phone at (517) 335-9760 or 

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: October 24, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

John Hanley,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer

Page 4

MTT

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 042024 

2 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

Do not use 

this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or 

Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUS" submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal 

(e.g. Board of Review Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not 

submit this document, you may be held in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.I 

Last Name/Company Name 

John 

P 

Hanley 

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

226 E 5th St 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Northport 

Ml 

49670 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

216-233-8374 

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

jphanleyhome@gmail.com 

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.1. 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcelsareyou 

| [[] vest 

[] No**

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that appty) 

True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Poverty Exemption 

[] Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[1] Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[7] uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[1 Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a 

{J Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

Our property is unfairly assessed. The 2024 proposed assessed value increased by 

33% and the reason given was market adjustment. This is new construction and is in 

the second year post construction. 

In the prior year (2023) there was no substantial 

market adjustment determined by the assessor which seems odd to me as that was at 

the point in time they could assess the home after completion. 

| do not believe the 

surrounding residences, nor the community as a whole were assessed with a 33% 

market adjustment increase. Further, Michigan law requires all property to be assessed 

uniformly. 

| brought this up in the board of review appeal and the Chairman said directly 

to me that is not the case. 

In addition, the assessed value is to be 50% of the true cash 

value. Under my assessed value of 678,400 the true cash value would equal 1,356,800. 

While nice, 

| do not believe the home would sell for close to that amount, 

Lastly the 

only homes near my property which are assessed at elevated levels are new 

construction. This was brought up in my discussion with the review board and 

| was told 

by the Chairman that those other homes have depreciated in value over time. Under 

that theory 

| should see my assessed and taxable values decline over time as my home 

will depreciate. Certainly that will not be the case. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Did you protest the assessment ata Board of Review (BOR)? 

Yes 

[0] No 

f Yes, ohack which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [14 March 

[ suty 

[7 pecember 

If No, check

Page 3

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

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

John Hanley,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 279. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: September 10, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

John Hanley,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003393

Township Of Leelanau,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 279. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: September 10, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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 042024 

2 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

Do not use 

this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or 

Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUS" submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal 

(e.g. Board of Review Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not 

submit this document, you may be held in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.I 

Last Name/Company Name 

John 

P 

Hanley 

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

226 E 5th St 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Northport 

Ml 

49670 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

216-233-8374 

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

jphanleyhome@gmail.com 

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.1. 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcelsareyou 

| [[] vest 

[] No**

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check all that appty) 

True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Poverty Exemption 

[] Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[1] Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[7] uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[1 Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a 

{J Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

Our property is unfairly assessed. The 2024 proposed assessed value increased by 

33% and the reason given was market adjustment. This is new construction and is in 

the second year post construction. 

In the prior year (2023) there was no substantial 

market adjustment determined by the assessor which seems odd to me as that was at 

the point in time they could assess the home after completion. 

| do not believe the 

surrounding residences, nor the community as a whole were assessed with a 33% 

market adjustment increase. Further, Michigan law requires all property to be assessed 

uniformly. 

| brought this up in the board of review appeal and the Chairman said directly 

to me that is not the case. 

In addition, the assessed value is to be 50% of the true cash 

value. Under my assessed value of 678,400 the true cash value would equal 1,356,800. 

While nice, 

| do not believe the home would sell for close to that amount, 

Lastly the 

only homes near my property which are assessed at elevated levels are new 

construction. This was brought up in my discussion with the review board and 

| was told 

by the Chairman that those other homes have depreciated in value over time. Under 

that theory 

| should see my assessed and taxable values decline over time as my home 

will depreciate. Certainly that will not be the case. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Did you protest the assessment ata Board of Review (BOR)? 

Yes 

[0] No 

f Yes, ohack which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [14 March 

[ suty 

[7 pecember 

If No, check

Page 3

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.