Judy L Gentner, Petitioner V Township Of Burtchville, 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 

November 4, 2025 

 

Judy L Gentner 

tjgentner@comcast.net 

Re: 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

 

Dear Ms. Gentner: 

 

The Michigan Tax Tribunal has received your second Motion for Reconsideration, filed 

on October 24, 2025, requesting reconsideration of the Final Opinion and Judgement 

issued on August 25, 2025. TTR 261(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration of 

any decision or order may be “filed within 21 days of the entry of the decision or order 

sought to be reheard or reconsidered.” Your motion is precluded because the 

Tribunal’s rule does not provide for the filing of multiple motions for reconsideration. 

Additionally, the Tribunal’s rule regarding reconsideration mirrors the applicable 

Michigan Court Rule, MCR 2.119(F), and the Michigan Court of Appeals has, likewise, 

held that the court rule does not provide for the filing of multiple motions for 

reconsideration.1 

 

As such, your only recourse is to appeal the Tribunal’s decision to the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this or any other Tribunal matter, please 

contact me at the Tribunal. 

 

Respectfully, 

 

 

 

Samantha Maria Snow Welton 

Chief Clerk 

 

 

 

 

 

1 See Kecskes v Paramount Newport Corp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued February 16, 2001 (Docket No. 214844).

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

0CT 2 9 2025 

‘ 

; 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Small Claims Division 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

To whom it may concern: 

I am respectfully writing this letter per my conversations with the Michigan Tax Tribunal and the 

Michigan State Tax Commission (Department of Treasury, Property Services Division). 

| filed an exception to the POJ. Due to an error in the LARA system, it was ruled a day late and denied 

acceptance. That exception pointed out the "Proposed Opinion and Judgment" dated June 17, 2025 

stated, on page six of eight, second paragraph: "Respondent also failed to account for how the subject 

2024 shall be $189,200." 

This ruling was not taken into consideration for the proposed judgment. 

Corrected amount should have been $759,000 - $22,268 = $736,732/$368,366. Per my conversation 

with the Michigan Tax Tribunal this could not be corrected over the phone, 

| would have to write a 

letter. 

Due to the fact the LARA system was in error my filing was a day late. Per conversations with both the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal and the Michigan State Tax Commission (Department of Treasury, Property 

Services Division), in my letter 

| should point out that the error for the filing date was due to an error in 

the LARA system and that should be taken into consideration for the demined "Motion for 

Reconsideration". The denial for reconsideration also stated that 

| did not serve the Respondent 

properly, this is an untrue assumption, the paper work for the reconsideration was taken to the 

township, hand delivered and time stamped. 

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. 

Judy L. Gentner ~ Petitioner 

MTT docket No. 24-003589 

6486 Lakeshore Rd. 

Burtchville, MI 48059 

Resale, A Td nel 

10/20/2025

Page 2

stifytsegielfiggegg 

loll styl tylopb 

ds 

legs 

Hor L1G 

—HANQ 

ry LL Aol 

(NYeIWwOIW 

TLT Wd 

S202 100 +2 

x 

08 

IW X31dO¥ 13 

Received 

OCT 27 

2025 

LARA 

bgoat, Tur'sop

Py FISHY

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 15 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX T 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

RIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

f 

Judy L Gentner 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Burtchville Township, MI 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. 

1 wish this Tribunal to reconsider 

its final decision due to error 

in their system 

- 

2. 

Good cause exists to grant reconsideration because: 

Docket #24-003589 

Per a conversation with he Mi Tax Tribunal office, 

| altached the filing ime line that LARA hed up the filing of my documents. There was an error in my profile set up by the LARA 

administrator, which would not allow me to electronically upload the file exception to my ruling on docket #24-003589. 

| e-mailed the exemplion to my ruling, on July 7 to two different 

e-mail addresses and 

| was notified that they would not accept the forms in those formats. Additionally, due 10 the file being setup improperly, 

} was not able to upload the response online. 

| refiled the exception after the error in the system was corrected by the administrator with explanation. The judge would not accept the paper work that was electronically filed because 

of the date. 

| called after receiving the final opinion and judgement and was told 1 need to fite the motion for reconsideration with explanation. 

July 4th a holiday, July & and July 6, a 

week-end, July 7th the system would not accept the electronic filing. See attached. 

July 8th, 

§ received notice that 

| could not e-mail, it had to be electronically filed. 

The person at the Mi Tax Tribunal fixed the errors in the systern and had me reflle my paper work with 

3. 

lask this Tribunal to grant my request for reconsideration. 

Lodo 

of Qntion 

R@rty/Bepreégntative (sign here) 

Judy L Gentner 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

I certify that on this date 

| served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

Seplemban 2026 

ude, of Uses

Page 2

Docket #24-003589 

Per a conversation with the Mi Tax Tribunal office, 

| attached the filing time line that LARA held 

up the filing of my documents. There was an error in my profile set up by the LARA 

administrator, which would not allow me to electronically upload the file exception to my ruling 

on docket #24-003589. 

| e-mailed the exemption to my ruling, on July 7 to two different e-mail 

addresses and 

| was notified that they would not accept the forms in those formats. 

Additionally, due to the file being setup improperly, 

| was not able to upload the response 

online. 

| refiled the exception after the error in the system was corrected by the administrator 

with explanation. The judge would not accept the paper work that was electronically filed 

because of the date. 

| called after receiving the final opinion and judgement and was told 

| need 

to file the motion for reconsideration with explanation. July 4th a holiday, July 5 and July 6, a 

week-end, July 7th the system would not accept the electronic filing. See attached. 

July 8th, 

| received notice that 

| could not e-mail, it had to be electronically filed. The person at 

the Mi Tax Tribunal fixed the errors in the system and had me refile my paper work with 

explanation.

Page 3

Mic

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 

Judy L Gentner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

 

Burtchville Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On September 10, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal 

reconsider the Final Opinion and Judgment entered in this case on August 25, 2025. In 

the motion, Petitioner states there was an error in their e-file profile which prevented 

Petitioner from submitting their exceptions to the Proposed Opinion and Judgment 

(POJ) entered on June 17, 2025. Although Petitioner submitted the exceptions via 

email, Petitioner was informed that exceptions could not be submitted via email. 

Petitioner refiled the exceptions after the error in the system was corrected, but the 

judge would not accept the paperwork that was electronically filed because it was after 

the deadline. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner’s 

Motion for Reconsideration addresses the Tribunal determination that Petitioner’s 

exceptions were untimely. The POJ indicated that “[t]he parties have 20 days from the 

‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal 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., file exceptions to the POJ).” The POJ went on to state that, “[e]xceptions must be 

signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any 

matter addressed in the POJ.” Additionally, Tax Tribunal Rule 291(1) provides as 

follows: 

 

[a] party may submit exceptions to a decision by a referee or an 

administrative law judge, other than a tribunal member, by filing with the 

tribunal and serving on the opposing parties the exceptions within 20 days 

after the entry of the decision. The exceptions must be signed and are 

limited to the evidence submitted before or otherwise admitted at the 

hearing and any matter addressed in the proposed opinion and judgment 

and demonstrate good cause as to why the decision should be adopted, 

modified, or a rehearing held. 

 

In addition to the fact that Petitioner did not timely submit their exceptions to the POJ, 

the proof of service filed in connection with the exceptions stated that Petitioner served 

a “copy of the Proposed Opinion & Judgment” on Respondent. Given Petitioner’s

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 2 of 3 

 

exceptions were not properly served on Respondent, the Tribunal properly determined 

that the exceptions were not properly pending before the Tribunal. 

 

Furthermore, despite Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, the issues raised within 

Petitioner’s submissions were considered by the ALJ in rendering the POJ. With regard 

to Petitioner’s claim that the sale of 6500 Lakeshore Road was not an estate sale, the 

POJ provided the following summary with regard to 6500 Lakeshore Road: 

 

Petitioner submitted comparable sales

Page 3

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

RECEIVED 

SEP 15 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX T 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

RIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

f 

Judy L Gentner 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Burtchville Township, MI 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. 

1 wish this Tribunal to reconsider 

its final decision due to error 

in their system 

- 

2. 

Good cause exists to grant reconsideration because: 

Docket #24-003589 

Per a conversation with he Mi Tax Tribunal office, 

| altached the filing ime line that LARA hed up the filing of my documents. There was an error in my profile set up by the LARA 

administrator, which would not allow me to electronically upload the file exception to my ruling on docket #24-003589. 

| e-mailed the exemplion to my ruling, on July 7 to two different 

e-mail addresses and 

| was notified that they would not accept the forms in those formats. Additionally, due 10 the file being setup improperly, 

} was not able to upload the response online. 

| refiled the exception after the error in the system was corrected by the administrator with explanation. The judge would not accept the paper work that was electronically filed because 

of the date. 

| called after receiving the final opinion and judgement and was told 1 need to fite the motion for reconsideration with explanation. 

July 4th a holiday, July & and July 6, a 

week-end, July 7th the system would not accept the electronic filing. See attached. 

July 8th, 

§ received notice that 

| could not e-mail, it had to be electronically filed. 

The person at the Mi Tax Tribunal fixed the errors in the systern and had me reflle my paper work with 

3. 

lask this Tribunal to grant my request for reconsideration. 

Lodo 

of Qntion 

R@rty/Bepreégntative (sign here) 

Judy L Gentner 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

I certify that on this date 

| served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

Seplemban 2026 

ude, of Uses

Page 2

Docket #24-003589 

Per a conversation with the Mi Tax Tribunal office, 

| attached the filing time line that LARA held 

up the filing of my documents. There was an error in my profile set up by the LARA 

administrator, which would not allow me to electronically upload the file exception to my ruling 

on docket #24-003589. 

| e-mailed the exemption to my ruling, on July 7 to two different e-mail 

addresses and 

| was notified that they would not accept the forms in those formats. 

Additionally, due to the file being setup improperly, 

| was not able to upload the response 

online. 

| refiled the exception after the error in the system was corrected by the administrator 

with explanation. The judge would not accept the paper work that was electronically filed 

because of the date. 

| called after receiving the final opinion and judgement and was told 

| need 

to file the motion for reconsideration with explanation. July 4th a holiday, July 5 and July 6, a 

week-end, July 7th the system would not accept the electronic filing. See attached. 

July 8th, 

| received notice that 

| could not e-mail, it had to be electronically filed. The person at 

the Mi Tax Tribunal fixed the errors in the system and had me refile my paper work with 

explanation.

Page 3

Mic

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 

Judy L Gentner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

 

Burtchville Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on June 17, 2025. The 

POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below 

to notify the Tribunal 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., file exceptions 

to the POJ).” 

 

On July 8, 2025, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. 

 

Respondent has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Petitioner’s 

exceptions. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the exceptions and the case file and finds that Petitioner’s 

exceptions were not filed within the 20-day timeframe permitted by TTR 291. As such, 

the exceptions are not properly pending before the Tribunal and will not be considered 

in this Final Opinion and Judgment.1 The Tribunal further finds that 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 is supported by the 

testimony, evidence and applicable statutory and case law. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final decision in this 

case.2 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a 

result: 

 

The property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and taxable value 

(TV), as established by the Board of Review for the tax years at issue, are as follows: 

 

 

 

 

1See Pars Ice Cream Company, Inc. v Dep’t of Treasury, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of 

Appeals, issued August 14, 2012 (Docket No. 305148). 

2 See MCL 205.726.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 2 of 3 

 

Parcel Number: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$759,000

$379,500

$379,500

2025

$851,800

$425,900

$391,264

 

The property’s final TCV, SEV, and TV, for the tax years at issue, are as follows: 

 

Parcel Number: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$759,000

$379,500

$379,500

2025

$851,800

$425,900

$391,264

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

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

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

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

Final Opinion and Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Final Opinion and 

Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.3 To the extent that the final level of 

assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, the 

assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes known. 

 

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

affected taxes

Page 3

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

N 

| BROW 

Henne 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

Y 

MTT Docket No. 24-008589 

~~ 

Township of Burtchville, MI 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

judy L Gentner 

states that on July 7th, 2025 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Proposed Opinion & Judgment 

_ relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

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

Township of Burtchwville 

Burtchville Township 

4000 Burch Road 

Burtchville, MI 48059 

Soda (uti. 

ure-of persar) 

aj who 

i is serving/mailing copy] 

Judy L Gentner 

[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, M1 48906

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON [. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Judy L Gentner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Burtchville Township, 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

. 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

Personnel Presiding: 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

May 20, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

~~ Judy Gentner 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Shelly Baumeister 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

The subject property's true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable 

value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: 

Parcel Number: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

2024 

$759,000 

$379,500 

$379,500 

2025 

$851,800 

$425,900 

$391,264 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

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

Review (BOR). 

Petitioner protested the subject property's assessment to the 2024 

March BOR. 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 26, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 8, 2024. 

The amount of the SEV or 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.! 

Further, the 

property's assessment for subsequent tax years is included in this proceeding.? 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

- 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 

- 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, Mi 48908 

- Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE,, LANSING, MI 48906

Page 3

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Small Claims Division 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

To whom it may concern: 

In reference to the 6500 Lakeshore Rd. Burtchville MI 48059, being an estate sale does not have 

merit, it was in fact Market Based. The house was processed through a normal real-estate sale 

for $695,000 in 2022. Furthermore, the house recently sold for $700,000 in 2025, Market Based 

and Arm's Length Sale. This does not support the escalation in market value as stated. 

It is also noted on rebuttal that the Respondent contends that there was an adjustment on the 

property identified as 6500 Lakeshore, where the right-of-way from the adjacent drain spills into 

the parce! because of erosion. This is not part of 6500 Lakeshore.

Page 4

O

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 

 

Judy L Gentner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

 

Burtchville Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROPOSED OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

May 20, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Judy Gentner 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Shelly Baumeister 

 

PROPOSED JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV) and taxable 

value (TV) for the tax years at issue shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$759,000

$379,500

$379,500

2025

$851,800

$425,900

$391,264

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

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

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2024 

March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 26, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 8, 2024. 

 

The amount of the SEV or 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 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003589 

Page 2 of 8 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its 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 

 

2. 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: 7411-470-0031-000 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$520,936

$260,468

$260,468

2025

$520,936

$260,468

$260,468

 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also

Page 3

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

mT oockeTho: 

RECEIVED 

24-003589 

MAY 0:2 2025 

Judy L. Genter 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

6486 Lakeshore Rd. 

Burtchville, MI 48059 

MTT Docket Number 24-003589 

April 28, 2025 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

To who it may concern: 

Although many equalization tasks consider the aggregate value of property within a class rather 

than individual values, the Accessor failed to remember two things about equalized and taxable 

values. 

First, if the calculated capped value of a parcel exceeds the state equalized value, the 

state equalized value becomes the taxable value. 

Second, if the property has had a transfer of ownership in the previous year, the state 

equalized value (SEV) becomes the taxable value for the year following the transfer of 

ownership, effectively “uncapping” it. 

In the tax tribunal response dated April 22, 2025 from Burtchville Township. The accessor states 

“The property was not accessed at the purchase price of the home for 2024”. It appears that the 

accessor added an additional $8,902 to the purchase price setting it to $758,902 to circumvent 

the MCL 211.27a(3). In short not accessing at half the purchase value and calling it “true Cash 

Value”. Very deceptive by the accessor. The below comp does not support the “True Cash 

Value”. The accessor used this method to disregards the uncapping of the SEV or the aggregate 

value of property within a class rather than individual values as stated above.

Page 2

PETITIONER: Judy L. Gentner 

MTT DOCKET NO: 

24-003589 

property transferred to me; the taxable value was required to be uncapped at the state 

equalized value of $342,000. At the end of 2024 there was a required increase using the 

inflation rate multiplier of 1.05%, making the new SEV for the property at $355,591. That is 

what it should have been, but was not accessed that way. Furthermore, there was an additional 

error in calculating the “Land Value” addressed below. 

The accessor failed to follow the state guidelines. She used the sale price for the new SEV, then 

added the 1.05% inflation rate multiplier and an additional $562.50 to create a new SEV based 

on the sale price and some undetermined increase of her own to come up with an unjustified 

number. 

The new 2024 SEV $342,000 with multiplier should be $355,591. 

What was created in error by the accessor: 

2024 6486 Lakeshore Rd. Actual Sale price $750,000/$375,000 

Accessor used the sale of $750,000/$375,000 with Multiplier 1.05% = $378,937 + 

$562.50 of unknown origins = $759,000/$379,500. The accessors new SEV is based on 

sales $379,500. Which is unconstitutional. 

Accessor did not use the uncapped SEV and current year multiplier. 

The accessor did not use an aggregate value of property, defended ECF Study to support 

the change. 

If a supported ECF Study was used, 

| am requesting a copy of the study used 

to support the SEV change and prove it was not based on sales. Again, is 

unconstitutional by law. 

If a current based sale ECF Study was used to support the change to the SEV and not an 

aggregate value of property based ECF, 

| will file a formal complaint to the state 

commission to correct the inappropriate actions of the accessor. The state has a strict 

mandated policy to be fair and accurate to everyone. The assessment should not be 

based on a lack of

Page 3

PETITION

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

BURTCHVILLE, TOWNSHIP 

ECErvER 

4000 BURTCH ROAD 

AP B 25 

MICHAEL APPEL, SUPERVISOR 

. 

a 2075 

ov 

CLE 

LAKEPORT, MICHIGAN 48059 

ROBERT BAILEY, 

CLERK 

PHONE: 

810-385-5577 

MI 

ALAN 

D BRIOLAT, TREASURER 

Fax. 

810-385-8551 

ChIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CYNTHIA MINNIE, TRUSTEE 

PATRICK JANKS, TRUSTEE 

April 22, 2025 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Re: MTT Docket Number 24-003589-TT-Judy L. Gentner v Twp of Burtchville 

To Whom It May Concern: 

I'am submitting the enclosed packet of information to be heard as evidence for hearing scheduled May 20, 2025 

at 10:00 a.m., for the valuation inclusion for the year of 2025. 

The following is response reflected by the most recent evidence submitted by the petitioner: 

Petitioner (as well as buyer) states that the property sale was “over market value”. MCL 211.27(7) 

defines “purchase price” means the total consideration agreed to in an arms-length transaction and not a 

Jorced sale paid by the purchaser of the property, stated in dollars, whether or not paid in dollars. Therefore, 

the sales price of the subject property is considered an arm’s length transaction. If there were “forced sale” 

components, they had not been fully disclosed upon the sale. Petitioner claims the property is not worth the 

sales price paid, however, it was a purchase price that was agreed upon. Petitioner relied on outside sources of 

interpretation of the transfer of ownership guidelines, rather than contacting the local unit assessor to confirm 

the process of uncapping and the transfer of ownership prior to the sale of the property. Petitioner then made 

assumptions for in the increase in assessed value based on a per square foot basis, rather than the list of sales 

that are provided within the area.

Page 2

In addition, sea walls/jetty’s are exempt per MCL211.7g and would not be considered within the assessment 

valuation. 

Petitioner states that “the assessor raised the SEV to the amount that I bought the home for”. The property was 

not assessed at the purchase price of the home for 2024. The True Cash Value for 2024 was set at 758,902 with 

an assessed and taxable value of 379,500. This is not the sales price of 750,000. MCL 211.27a(3) states Upon a 

transfer of ownership of property after 1994, the property's taxable value for the calendar year following the 

year of the transfer is the property's state equalized valuation 

for the calendar year following the transfer. 

Furthermore, the Transfer of Ownership Guidelines issued by the State Tax Commission states: Note: 4 

property’s true cash value is usually not the same as its sale price for a variety of reasons. An assessor must 

determine the true cash value of a property which has sold in the same manner that the assessor determines the 

true cash values of properties which have not sold. Therefore, an assessor may not automatically set an 

assessed value or a taxable value at half of a property’s selling price. See State Tax Commission Bulletin No. 

19 of 

1997 and State Tax Commission Memorandum dated October 25, 2005 that describes the illegal and 

unconstitutional practice of “following sales.” 

The housing market is not down, and I have provided Burtchville Townships 4018 

ratios to show that a 

mandatory increase was in order for 2024 and 2025 for Burtchville Township

Page 3

herdia

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

ReCelveD 

APR 21 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ~~ 

MARLON 

BROWN. DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Judy L Gentner, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 24-003589 

Township Of Burtchville, 

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: | May 20. 2025 

HEARING TIME: | 10:00 AM EST 

JOIN BY PHONE: | 1-248-509-0316 

495507942 

ACCESS CODE: 

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. 

Af6 a%fh gFFesyel 

SRR WT, TE[AT FE (FT WAFL SIT FF | 

ECV POPPE ALIN PEETE VER PEE ELE PRAT 

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

dokumento.

Page 2

ATIONER: Judy L. Gentner 

MT¥ DOCKET NO: 

24-003589 

2024 ~ BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION APPEAL FOR: 

6486 LAKESHORE RD., BURTCHVILLE, MI 

MIT DOCKET NO: 24-003589

Page 3

1. For full transparency, I bought my home at 6486 Lakeshore Rd, knowing I was 

paying over market value for it... There were medical reasons for that decision... 

When I bought my home, I talked to two different real estate agents, the owner who 

was a real estate agent, [ researched online the assessment and valuations mandates 

for Michigan and talked to a contractor that works with permits and SEV issues... I 

was told that the SEV cap would be uncapped and the taxable value would be reset 

to the SEV that had been determined by the township, on file at the time of 

purchase... That was not the case... The assessor raised the SEV to the amount that 

I bought the home for, added the 1.05 inflation rate multiplier and an additional 

$562.50... The 1.05 inflation multiplier is based on a one-year period of time ~ I 

was charged that 1.05 multiplier for a one-month period of time... When I asked 

about the additional $562.50, my question was ignored... When the home at 6500 

was purchased, the new SEV was placed at less than what they bought it for... 

Going by the determined township SEV when I purchased my home November 30, 

2023 to what the township raised the SEV to with the 2024 assessment, the SEV is 

up 11%, for a one-month period of time... 

2. 

I have attached to my appeal a list of homes that sold in 2023 and 2024... I have 

compared those homes to mine adding or subtracting comparable features of each 

home... The most comparable home is my home to the home next door to me that 

sold the year before I bought mine... Both homes have the same lot depth, are the 

same area, are on the same main road, have the same view, have the same beach 

and both have sea walls... The home at 6500 has a calculation of $3,706 per foot 

for land value ~

Page 4

+

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

Judy L Gentner,

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No.: 24-003589

Township Of Burtchville, 

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:

May 20, 2025 

HEARING TIME:

10:00 AM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

495507942 

 

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. 24-003589

Page 2 of 13

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

Page 3

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

seam, 

RECEIVED 

A 

3 

= 

0CT 16 2024 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO, 24-003589 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

Ma: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Judy 

L 

Gentner 

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

County: 

6486 Lakeshore Road 

St. Clair 

City or Town; 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Burtchville 

Mi 

48059 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

586-596-5492 

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 Information 

| 

First Name: 

Ml: 

Last Name: 

N/A 

Firm Name (if any): 

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rurai 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 email): 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

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

Yes 

[| No 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

if not, list which parcels adjoin one another.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

| am appealing the 2024 Board of Review Decision made by the Burfchville Township 

review board. 

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)? [4 Yes 

[| No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [6 March 

[| July 

[] December 

If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? O Yes 

[] 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? [| Yes 

[0] 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? [0] Yes 

No 

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

[i] Yes 

[7] No 

if so, what is the issue date?

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 at a BOR? [J Yes 

[eA no 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [I March 

O July 

| 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? [H] Yes 

[Hl] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: (| March 

[I] July 

[I 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} 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial

Page 4

Judy

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

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

RECEIVED 

OCT 102024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL. 

MARLON 

I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24-003689-TT 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

mi: 

Burtchville Township 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

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

4000 Burtch Rd 

“"3t, Clair 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Lakeport 

MI 

148059 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

(810)385-5577 

(810)385-8551 

sbaumeister@hotmail.com 

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 Information 

First Name: 

Shelly 

M1: 

Last Name: 

Baumeister 

Firm Name (if any): 

Burtchville Township Assessor 

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

4000 Burtch Rd 

City or Town: 

Lakeport 

State: 

MI 

ZIP Code: 

48059 

Tetephone Number: 

(810)385-5577 

Fax Number; 

(810)385-8551 

sbaumeister@hotmail.com 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Yes 

[1 No 

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

0 Yes 

0 

No 

Not Applicable 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If not, list which parcels adjoin one another.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I, BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Property is assessed uniformly within the township, as well as in accordance with the 

sales price. Attached are land values and ECF sales studies to provide proof of value 

and assessment. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER 1S APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [4] Yes 

[] No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended; [i March 

[J July 

[} December 

If no, was the Natice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [Hl] Yes 

O No 

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

ifthe July or December BOR revised the assessment(s} at issue, did it have authority? [Hm] Yes 

[I] 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? [mi] Yes 

No 

if yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appeallng from a State Tax Commission Order? 

[J Yes 

[4 No 

If so, what Is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER {8 APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

MARLON 

|. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

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

[J No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: O March 

0 July 

O 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? [| Yes 

O No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [] March 

[J] July 

[]

Page 4

+xxPP33

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

Judy L Gentner,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589

Township Of Burtchville,

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. 24-003589

Page 2 of 7

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 14, 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

Judy L Gentner

6486 Lakeshore Road

Burtchville , MI 48059

Page 4

STATE

Page 5

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 

JUL 01 2024 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

M(H: idk i 

FY 

SUN, 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I 

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 MUST 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.1. 

Last Name/Company Name 

Judy 

L. 

| GENER 

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

YB 

Lakeshore 

£4. 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Burehoille 

mi 

| 

48059 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

BRL -5AL-5442 

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

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

M.I 

First Name 

Last Name 

N/a 

Firm Nanle (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZiP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels areyou | [7] yes* 

No**

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check ait that apply) 

xX True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Poverty Exemption 

J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

|] Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[J 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 

1 AM 

Pppealivg 

the 2024 

PoArd o£ Rebiew 

Decisiol 

 maded by 

Yhe 

Bupdehville Township ovigw boarch. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s} you are appealing: 

ong. 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 4 Yes 

O No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: pd March 

[J July 

[] December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[I Not required to attend 

I] Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5)

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the muitiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

[ Parcei Identification Number: 

"YW HYD. 0031] 

- oop 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

ad 

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

319 00 

Current Taxable Value as eStablished by the BOR: 

*319 500

Page 4

STAT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

Judy L Gentner,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589

Township Of Burtchville,

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: October 1, 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

Judy L Gentner

6486 Lakeshore Road

Burtchville , MI 48059

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

Judy L Gentner,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003589

Township Of Burtchville,

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: October 1, 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

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 

JUL 01 2024 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

M(H: idk i 

FY 

SUN, 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I 

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 MUST 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.1. 

Last Name/Company Name 

Judy 

L. 

| GENER 

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

YB 

Lakeshore 

£4. 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Burehoille 

mi 

| 

48059 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

BRL -5AL-5442 

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

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

M.I 

First Name 

Last Name 

N/a 

Firm Nanle (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZiP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels areyou | [7] yes* 

No**

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check ait that apply) 

xX True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Poverty Exemption 

J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

|] Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[J 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 

1 AM 

Pppealivg 

the 2024 

PoArd o£ Rebiew 

Decisiol 

 maded by 

Yhe 

Bupdehville Township ovigw boarch. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s} you are appealing: 

ong. 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 4 Yes 

O No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: pd March 

[J July 

[] December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[I Not required to attend 

I] Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5)

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information *Use the muitiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

[ Parcei Identification Number: 

"YW HYD. 0031] 

- oop 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

ad 

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

319 00 

Current Taxable Value as eStablished by the BOR: 

*319 500

Page 4

STAT

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