Linda Lewis, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent

Page 1

RECEIVED 

DEC 2 3 2024 

Motion to Reconsider: 

HY ~ 

004091 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Your Honor, 

I am reaching out to ask you to reconsider your decision. I never received any information to 

prompt me to attend a BOR or submit any information for the review. I received the BOR letter 

from the city of Detroit along with my taxes in the mail not knowing what it was. I called the city 

of Detroit (this month after receiving your decision), for clarification but no none could tell me 

who submitted the request or the date the review took place. I do not understand when or where 

it was presented during the March board of review meeting in 2024. 

Since I did not attend the board of review, I was not aware of the July appeal deadline because I 

did not submit the application. If 

I knew about the deadline, 

I would have submitted my appeal 

especially with my taxes being extremely high. 

I am asking if someone would still review my 

file. 

There have been some changes to my account. The NEZ has been applied, and the new tax 

amount is $17,500. The taxes are still extremely more than the other homes in the area, and I am 

not competitive, With this amount in taxes, we couldn’t sell this home. This property 59 Sand 

Bar, Detroit is the smallest home with the least square footage in the neighborhood. For 

reference, this property has the highest amount of property taxes in the neighborhood exceeding 

the property taxes for larger homes. 

Attached is the BS&A tax information for property at 59 Sand Bar Lane. There are discrepancies 

noted. It shows that there are four half baths instead of one. It also shows that the home was built 

with a basement of 1626 sf (square feet) and has 5,444 sf of living space; according to the sketch, 

there is only 3,152 sf. The sketch also shows that there is an addition on the patio of 420 sf. All 

of this is attributing to the tax basis. There is not a basement, there is not a patio of 420 sf and 

there are not 4 half bathrooms. (Included in this letter) 

Also, there aren’t any comparable’s to 59 Sand Bar and it is unclear how the SEV can go up to 

$300,000 even with the home being uncapped at the time of purchase. I am concerned the city is 

chasing the sale which is illegal. 

Below is the timeline for the sale of 59 Sand Bar: 

2-10-20 sold from Morgan Waterfront to Detroit Brick Properties @ $549,000

Page 2

investor didn’t have an NEZ attached to it and the taxes were still extremely lower then ours are. 

We have been struggling to pay an added $1800 a month to cover the 2024 tax bill. We wouldn’t 

have thought about buying this home if we knew we would be responsible for $20,000 in taxes. 

Currently I don’t know how long we can continue to pay this amount. This is why we are 

appealing. This drastic increase in property taxes does not make it competitive. We want to stay 

competitive in the neighborhood. We couldn’t sell the property today with a $17,500 tax bill 

attached to it. 

Sandbar homes listed below, bought or sold with tax amounts are: 

18 Sandbar currently listed at $1,899,000. SEV at 579,000 w/capped value at 75,898; Bought 4- 

19-19 @ $2 mil with taxes being $6,246 in 2023? 

26 Sandbar sold 8-22-24 @ 1.3 mil w/6,964 sf with SEV of only 21,300 and a capped value of 

22,365? Taxes for 2023 $1474; 2022 $1488? 

107 Sandbar sold 5-4-23 @ $490k w/5,140 sf with a SEV of $20,900 and capped at 11,082 

w/taxes at $730 for 2023? Taxes for summer 2022 was $824? 

83 Sandbar sold 3-21-23 @ 695 w/4,106 sf with a SEV of 24,000 and capped at 24,900 w/taxes 

at $2,056 in 20237 (Taxes for summer 2024 cheaper than 2023 (1405 vs 1832)?) This home was 

also sold in 2022 and no update in sev and capped value? 

The property taxes for 51 Sand Bar are $700 

The Property taxes for 82 Sand Bar are $2,000 

The property taxes for 58 Sand Bar are $1900 

The property taxes for 162 Sand Bar are $1600 

The property taxes for 74 Sand Bar are 8,000 

The property taxes for 59 Sand Bar are $16,000

Page 3

The city assessor said that when we purchased the home, it became uncapped. Why wasn’t it 

“uncapped when the investment firm purchased it in 2021? 

Also, per state TAX commission bulletin, NO.19 of 1997, the accessor may net automatically 

set an assessed value or a taxable value at half of a property’s selling price. 

The taxable value of property in MI can increase by no more than 5% from one year to the next. 

Due to the new home purchase the property taxes have quadrupled and the SEV followed the 

sale which is illegal. The home is not competitive, and the property taxes are higher for this 

home than the property taxes that were listed

Page 5

5

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 

Linda Lewis, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On December 10, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on November 26, 2024.1 In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they received the Board of Review (BOR) letter from the City of 

Detroit in the mail not knowing what it was. Since Petitioner did not attend the BOR, 

they were not aware of the July appeal deadline. 

 

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

failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the 

Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the 

error was corrected.2 The Tribunal correctly determined that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because they failed to file a petition with the Tribunal on or before 

July 31, 2024, as required by MCL 205.735a.3 Though Petitioner states that they did 

not know what the BOR decision was, they explicitly acknowledge receiving it. The 

BOR decision indicates that the property’s 2024 taxable value was increased from 

$75,898 to $300,600; it also states that “a Michigan Tax Tribunal appeal must be made 

by July 31st of the current year for Residential Real Property Classification.” Moreover, 

“Everyone is presumed to know the law.”4 As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has 

no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing 

deadline, it has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief requested.5 Therefore, 

 

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

 

1 Petitioner filed additional copies/variations of the motion in response to the December 11, 2024 Notice 

of No Action on December 18, 2024 and January 2, 2025. 

2 See MCR 2.119. 

3 The Tribunal also has no authority under MCL 211.53a because the facts alleged do not establish that 

the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, typographical, or 

mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on 

by both parties”).3 And though MCL 211.53b provides July and December boards of review with the 

authority to correct qualified errors, Petitioner did not appear before Respondent’s July or December 

Board of Review or appeal an action taken by any such board. 

4 Grand Rapids Indep Pub Co v City of Grand Rapids, 335 Mich 620, 630; 56 NW2d 403, 407 (1953). 

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

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

Page 2 of 2 

 

 

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

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: January 13, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

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

0, 

Ha Lettre 

fs 

Coby 

oy, Dect Gnclosed 

pn wt 64 

M 

ow 

vo cemsdonach oo and Rh 9 service 

1838 oy, the se documents 

wow waded 

Bo "The Coty. 

ra) fect attached) 

RECEIVED 

Dockodd Qt 004A | 

JAN 08 2025 

DK 

~ 

2 

sand 

 Bav Ln 

Address 

Rid LN 

gb 4 

Piha 

[indas 

| Luts 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Page 2

bina le ord 

Dockek © 34 -00409 

| 

Motion to Reconsider: 

Your Honor, 

I am reaching out to ask you to reconsider your decision. I never received any information to 

prompt me to attend a BOR or submit any information for the review. I received the BOR letter 

from the city of Detroit along with my taxes in the mail not knowing what it was. I called the city 

of Detroit (this month after receiving your decision), for clarification but no none could tell me 

who submitted the request or the date the review took place. I do not understand when or where 

it was presented during the March board of review meeting in 2024. 

Since I did not attend the board of review, I was not aware of the July appeal deadline because I 

did not submit the application. If T knew about the deadline, I would have submitted my appeal 

especially with my taxes being extremely high. I am asking if someone would still review my 

file. 

There have been some changes to my account. The NEZ has been applied, and the new tax 

amount is $17,500. The taxes are still extremely more than the other homes in the area, and I am 

not competitive. With this amount in taxes, we couldnt sell this home. This property 59 Sand 

Bar, Detroit is the smallest home with the least square footage in the neighborhood. For 

reference, this property has the highest amount of property taxes in the neighborhood exceeding 

the property taxes for larger homes. 

Attached is the BS&A tax information for property at 59 Sand Bar Lane. There are discrepancies 

noted. It shows that there are four half baths instead of one, It also shows that the home was built 

with a basement of 1626 sf (square feet) and has 5,444 sf of living space; according to the sketch, 

there is only 3,152 sf. The sketch also shows that there is an addition on the patio of 420 sf, All 

of this is attributing to the tax basis. There is not a basement, there is not a patio of 420 sf and 

there are not 4 half bathrooms. (Included in this letter) 

Also, there aren’t any comparable’s to 59 Sand Bar and it is unclear how the SEV can go up to 

$300,000 even with the home being uncapped at the time of purchase. [ am concerned the city is 

chasing the sale which is illegal. 

Below is the timeline for the sale of 59 Sand Bat; 

2-10-20 sold from Morgan Waterfront to Detroit Brick Properties @ $549,000 

10-7-21 from Detroit Brick Properties to

Page 3

investor didn’t have an NEZ attached to the 59 Sand Bar Ln and the taxes were still extremely 

lower then ours are. We have been struggling to pay an added $1800 a month to cover the 2024 

tax bill. We wouldn’t have thought about buying this home if we knew we would be responsible 

for $20,000 in taxes. Currently I don’t know how long we can continue to pay this amount. This 

is why we are appealing. This drastic increase in property taxes does not make it competitive. We 

want to stay competitive in the neighborhood. We couldn't sell the property today with a $17,500 

tax bill attached to it. 

Sandbar homes listed below, bought or sold with tax amounts are: 

18 Sandbar currently listed at $1,899,000. SEV at 579,000 w/capped value at 75,898; Bought 4- 

19-19 @ $2 mil with taxes being $6,246 in 2023? 

26 Sandbar sold 8-22-24 @ 1.3 mil w/6,964 sf with SEV of only 21,300 and a capped value of 

22,3657 Taxes for 2023 $1474; 2022 $1488? 

107 Sandbar sold 5-4-23 @ $490k w/5,140 sf with a SEV of $20,900 and capped at 11,082 

witaxes at $730 for 2023? Taxes for summer 2022 was $824? 

83 Sandbar sold 3-21-23 @ 695 w/4,106 sf with a SEV of 24,000 and capped at 24,900 w/taxes 

at $2,056 in 20237 (Taxes for summer 2024 cheaper than 2023 (1405 vs 1832)?7) This home was 

also sold in 2022 and no update in sev and capped value? 

The property taxes for 51 Sand Bar are $700 

The Property taxes for 82 Sand Bar are $2,000 

The property taxes for 58 Sand Bar are $1900 

The property taxes for 162 Sand Bar are $1600 

The property taxes for 74 Sand Bar are 8,000 

The property taxes for 59 Sand Bar are $16,000

Page 4

The city assessor said that when we purchased the home, it became uncapped. Why wasn’t it 

uncapped when the investment firm purchased it in 2021? 

Also, per state TAX commission bulletin, NO.19 of 1997, the accessor may not automatically 

set an assessed value or a taxable value at half of a property’s selling

Page 5

59

Page 6

Sate

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 

DEC 2 3 2024 

Motion to Reconsider: 

HY ~ 

004091 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Your Honor, 

I am reaching out to ask you to reconsider your decision. I never received any information to 

prompt me to attend a BOR or submit any information for the review. I received the BOR letter 

from the city of Detroit along with my taxes in the mail not knowing what it was. I called the city 

of Detroit (this month after receiving your decision), for clarification but no none could tell me 

who submitted the request or the date the review took place. I do not understand when or where 

it was presented during the March board of review meeting in 2024. 

Since I did not attend the board of review, I was not aware of the July appeal deadline because I 

did not submit the application. If 

I knew about the deadline, 

I would have submitted my appeal 

especially with my taxes being extremely high. 

I am asking if someone would still review my 

file. 

There have been some changes to my account. The NEZ has been applied, and the new tax 

amount is $17,500. The taxes are still extremely more than the other homes in the area, and I am 

not competitive, With this amount in taxes, we couldn’t sell this home. This property 59 Sand 

Bar, Detroit is the smallest home with the least square footage in the neighborhood. For 

reference, this property has the highest amount of property taxes in the neighborhood exceeding 

the property taxes for larger homes. 

Attached is the BS&A tax information for property at 59 Sand Bar Lane. There are discrepancies 

noted. It shows that there are four half baths instead of one. It also shows that the home was built 

with a basement of 1626 sf (square feet) and has 5,444 sf of living space; according to the sketch, 

there is only 3,152 sf. The sketch also shows that there is an addition on the patio of 420 sf. All 

of this is attributing to the tax basis. There is not a basement, there is not a patio of 420 sf and 

there are not 4 half bathrooms. (Included in this letter) 

Also, there aren’t any comparable’s to 59 Sand Bar and it is unclear how the SEV can go up to 

$300,000 even with the home being uncapped at the time of purchase. I am concerned the city is 

chasing the sale which is illegal. 

Below is the timeline for the sale of 59 Sand Bar: 

2-10-20 sold from Morgan Waterfront to Detroit Brick Properties @ $549,000

Page 2

investor didn’t have an NEZ attached to it and the taxes were still extremely lower then ours are. 

We have been struggling to pay an added $1800 a month to cover the 2024 tax bill. We wouldn’t 

have thought about buying this home if we knew we would be responsible for $20,000 in taxes. 

Currently I don’t know how long we can continue to pay this amount. This is why we are 

appealing. This drastic increase in property taxes does not make it competitive. We want to stay 

competitive in the neighborhood. We couldn’t sell the property today with a $17,500 tax bill 

attached to it. 

Sandbar homes listed below, bought or sold with tax amounts are: 

18 Sandbar currently listed at $1,899,000. SEV at 579,000 w/capped value at 75,898; Bought 4- 

19-19 @ $2 mil with taxes being $6,246 in 2023? 

26 Sandbar sold 8-22-24 @ 1.3 mil w/6,964 sf with SEV of only 21,300 and a capped value of 

22,365? Taxes for 2023 $1474; 2022 $1488? 

107 Sandbar sold 5-4-23 @ $490k w/5,140 sf with a SEV of $20,900 and capped at 11,082 

w/taxes at $730 for 2023? Taxes for summer 2022 was $824? 

83 Sandbar sold 3-21-23 @ 695 w/4,106 sf with a SEV of 24,000 and capped at 24,900 w/taxes 

at $2,056 in 20237 (Taxes for summer 2024 cheaper than 2023 (1405 vs 1832)?) This home was 

also sold in 2022 and no update in sev and capped value? 

The property taxes for 51 Sand Bar are $700 

The Property taxes for 82 Sand Bar are $2,000 

The property taxes for 58 Sand Bar are $1900 

The property taxes for 162 Sand Bar are $1600 

The property taxes for 74 Sand Bar are 8,000 

The property taxes for 59 Sand Bar are $16,000

Page 3

The city assessor said that when we purchased the home, it became uncapped. Why wasn’t it 

“uncapped when the investment firm purchased it in 2021? 

Also, per state TAX commission bulletin, NO.19 of 1997, the accessor may net automatically 

set an assessed value or a taxable value at half of a property’s selling price. 

The taxable value of property in MI can increase by no more than 5% from one year to the next. 

Due to the new home purchase the property taxes have quadrupled and the SEV followed the 

sale which is illegal. The home is not competitive, and the property taxes are higher for this 

home than the property taxes that were listed

Page 5

5

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 

DEC 2 3 2024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

) 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON i. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

u nda 

Lows 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No_34 ~C04D | 

(Cel og Debods 

JV 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Linde lewis 

states thaton _ 

| > | 11 

AH 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of thell0hon for Leorrdvtaishve to the above-captioned matter upon: 

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

(eh 49, Deport 

2 Wodwdvd Ave 

ote @0Y4 

Dibyoto, ME 

38220 

Ase0ve [Don acd ox dugg ior 

f 

0] 

KN Aes 

[Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy} 

Linde Lewis

Page 2

= 

o

METROPLEX MI 480 no 

H 

18 DEC 2024 

PM 8 

L 

59 Sand Rar 

Deh oto A 

ugg 

Tax “Tilownald 

ll 

WW. Ottawa Sc. 

Lansing 

, M| 

J 

Ug9433 

~1Y J vs In L or \ 

hE 

He LF 

4 

Alle hi phe 

Phe igh Jit

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

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that the Tribunal has received Motion for Reconsideration (“document”). 

You were, however, required to file proof demonstrating the service of that document on 

the opposing party (“proof of service”) and no proof of service has been filed.1 As such, 

the document is not properly pending and no action will be taken unless the required 

proof of service is filed within 14 days of the issuance of this notice. If the required proof 

of service is not filed within 14 days, you will be required to re-file the document with the 

appropriate filing fee and proof that the re-filed document was served on the opposing 

party.

Entered: December 11, 2024

By: Tribunal Clerk

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 261, 219(7), and 221(12).

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

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that the Tribunal has received Motion for Reconsideration (“document”). 

You were, however, required to file proof demonstrating the service of that document on 

the opposing party (“proof of service”) and no proof of service has been filed.2 As such, 

the document is not properly pending and no action will be taken unless the required 

proof of service is filed within 14 days of the issuance of this notice. If the required proof 

of service is not filed within 14 days, you will be required to re-file the document with the 

appropriate filing fee and proof that the re-filed document was served on the opposing 

party.

Entered: December 11, 2024

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

2 See TTR 261, 219(7), and 221(12).

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

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that the Tribunal has received Motion for Reconsideration (“document”). 

You were, however, required to file proof demonstrating the service of that document on 

the opposing party (“proof of service”) and no proof of service has been filed.3 As such, 

the document is not properly pending and no action will be taken unless the required 

proof of service is filed within 14 days of the issuance of this notice. If the required proof 

of service is not filed within 14 days, you will be required to re-file the document with the 

appropriate filing fee and proof that the re-filed document was served on the opposing 

party.

Entered: December 11, 2024

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

3 See TTR 261, 219(7), and 221(12).

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

A Mohon dor 

coma luchor 

Docket: 24-00409| 

Your Honor, 

I am reaching out to ask you to reconsider your decision. 

| never received any information 

to prompt me to attend a BOR or submit any information for the review. 

| received the BOR 

letter from the city of Detroit along with my taxes in the mail not knowing what it was. 

| 

called the city of Detroit {this month after receiving your decision), for clarification but no 

none could tell me who submitted the request or the date the review took place. 

| do not 

understand when or where it was presented during the March board of review meeting in 

2024, 

Since 

| did not attend the board of review, 

| was not aware of the July appeal deadline 

because 

| did not submit the application. If 

| knew about the deadline, 

| would have 

submitted my appeal since my taxes are so high. 

| am asking if someone would still review 

my file. 

There have been some changes to my account. The NEZ has been applied, and the new tax 

amount is $16,000. The taxes are still extremely more than the other homes in the area, and 

| am not competitive. My home, 59 Sand Bar, Detroit is the smallest home with the least 

square footage in the neighborhood. For reference, most property taxes in the 

neighborhood exceed the property taxes for the larger homes. 

“We are appealing the taxes to the state because there is an extreme variance in 

property taxes for the property located at 59 Sand Bar vs. the other properties. 

Originally when the home was purchased the taxes were $6,500 for the year. The 

previous owner was an investor and from what | was told investors pay higher 

taxes. We assumed the property taxes would go down once it was owned by a 

resident. To our surprise the property taxes did the opposite. They went from 

$6,500 with an investor 

to $16,000 after the NEZ. This drastic increase in property 

taxes does not make it competitive. We want to stay competitive in the 

neighborhood.

Page 2

thane 

Be 

eo 

2,0 

N 

TASES -B 

LL ase] 

The property taxes for 58 Sand Bar are $1900 

The property taxes for 162 Sand Bar are $1600 

The property taxes for 74 Sand Bar are 8,000 

The property taxes for 59 Sand Bar are $16,000 

The city assessor said that when we purchased the home, it became uncapped. 

Why wasn’t it uncapped when the investment firm purchased it last year? 

Also, per state TAX commission bulletin, NO.19 of 1997, the accessor may hot 

automatically set an assessed value or a taxable value at half of a property’s 

selling price. 

The taxable value of property in Ml can increase by no more than 5% from one 

year to the next. 

Due to the new home purchase the property taxes have quadrupled and the SEV 

followed the sale which is illegal. The home is not competitive, and the property 

taxes are higher for this home than the property taxes that were listed at $2M. We 

could not sell this house today with taxes being $16,000.”

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

City of Detroit, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

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

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

This Order resolves all pending issues and closes the case. 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

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

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

Appeals. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

Page 2 of 2 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final

Page 5

Midnig

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

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 24-004091

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

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

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This Order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

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

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

Appeals. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004091

Page 2 of 6

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

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

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: November 26, 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

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 24-004091

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

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

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This Order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

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

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

Appeals. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if so, there is

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

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 105 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

Phone: (313) 628-0722 

Fax: {313) 224-4576 

www.detroitmi.gov 

woporty Avsassment 

Board of Review 

arv or. 

DETROIT. 

05/16/2024 

RECEIVED 

© 

ay-poH0o9| 

PINCHEM, ANGELA 

NOV 2 22024 

59 SAND BAR LANE 22 

DETROIT Mi 48223 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

RE: 

2024 

MARCH BOARD OF REVIEW PETITION NUMBER: 

M-64519 

and concluded that: 

FINDING OF FACTS: 

1. 

Parcel Number: 

21000060.022 

2. 

Property Address: 

59 SAND BAR LANE 22 

3. 

District: 

5 

4. 

Property Classification: 

407 

(RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS) 

Ad Valorem 

6. 

Principle Residence Exemption: 

% 

5. 

Property Legal Description: 

UNIT 22 WAYNE COUNTY CODOMINIUM PLAN NO 920 * MORGAN WATERFRONT HOMES "REC L44997 P88-149 DEEDS, WCR 217 

6. 

Petitioner timely filed an appeal to the March Board of Review. 

7. The March Board of Review considered 

(if any) petitioner's and/or duly authorized representative evidence 

and/or testimony. The March Board of Review considered facts presented as on the assessment roli and/or any 

recommendations offered by the Office of the Assessor, 

CONCLUSION: 

Taxable Value Uncapping due to Proposal A of 1994 

Before Appeal 

After Appeal 

2024 

Assessed Value 

300,700 

300,600 

2024 

Taxable Value 

75,898 

300,600 

If you are dissatisfied with the decision of the March Board of Review, submit this notice and complete the enclosed 

small claims form to appeal to: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing MI 48909 

A Michigan Tax Tribunal appeal must be made 

by May 31st 

of the current year for properties classified 

as: 

Commercial 

Real, 

Industrial 

Real, 

Commercial 

Personal, 

Industrial 

Personal 

and 

Utility 

Personal 

Property.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Linda Lewis, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

City of Detroit, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF DEFAULT 

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 277. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this Order. 

Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition and may have failed to pay the full 

required fee for the filing of the petition. See TTR 277 and 267. As such, the appeal is 

not properly pending. Petitioner must complete the petition by providing all information 

required by each applicable section, return the completed petition, and pay the 

additional fee amount required for the filing of the petition, 

if any, within 14 days of the 

entry of this Order. The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal. 

Small Claims petition forms and a filing fee calculator can be found on our website at 

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Unfortunately, the payment may not be made via e-filing. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner 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.} 

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). 

2 

. 

. 

By, alien 

oF 

I Alpe

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

Page 2 of 2 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| 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 

“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

Page 4

METR

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

Linda Lewis,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 277. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this Order. 

Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition and may have failed to pay the full 

required fee for the filing of the petition. See TTR 277 and 267. As such, the appeal is 

not properly pending. Petitioner must complete the petition by providing all information 

required by each applicable section, return the completed petition, and pay the 

additional fee amount required for the filing of the petition, if any, within 14 days of the 

entry of this Order. The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal. 

Small Claims petition forms and a filing fee calculator can be found on our website at 

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Unfortunately, the payment may not be made via e-filing. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner 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: November 13, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004091

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 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

Linda Lewis,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of 

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment 

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 277. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this Order. 

Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition and may have failed to pay the full 

required fee for the filing of the petition. See TTR 277 and 267. As such, the appeal is 

not properly pending. Petitioner must complete the petition by providing all information 

required by each applicable section, return the completed petition, and pay the 

additional fee

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 

Nov 13 204 

4 

EE 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. 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 “T; 

Pa 

ML 

Last Name/Company Name 

lewis 

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

ve Sad 

S 

State 

ZIP Co 

Debris 

wm" 

Ty aid 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

212 25 H-004e 

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 

Pinata 

T_ 

| Pinch m 

Firm Name (ifanly) 

Address (No., Street, P.0. Box or Rural Route) 

QO 

Weodwand &wve. 

CityorTown 

State 

ZIP Cade 

Dehrpte 

MI | 4g20] 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

23-354 - a0de 

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

ange la. Lpinch@ ama cco 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels are you | [] ves* 

No** 

appealing? 

*if yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels.

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 all that apply) 

4 True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Poverty Exemption 

[1 Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[7] Disabled Veterans Exemption 

=? Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[3 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[ Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a 

[J Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

59 Sand Bar vs. the other properties. Originally when the home was purchased the taxes were $6,500 for the year. The 

—- 

previous owner was an investor and from what 

| was told investors pay higher taxes. We were under the assumption that 

the property taxes would go down once a resident owned it. To our surprise the property taxes did the opposite, They went 

from $6,500 with an investor to $25,000 with an owner occupied. This drastic increase in property taxes does not make 

the property competitive, We have to be competitive in the neighborhood. The home located at 59 Sand Bar is the 

smallest home in the neighborhood, but the the taxes far exceed the other homes that are extremely bigger in size. 

The property taxes for 51 Sand Bar are $700 

The Property taxes for 82 Sand Bar are $2,000 

The property taxes for 58 Sand Bar are $1900 

The property taxes for 162 Sand Bar are $1600 

The property taxes for 74 Sand Bar are 8,000 

The property taxes for 59 Sand Bar are $25,000 

The city assessor sald that when we purchased the home, it became uncapped. Why wasn't it uncapped when the 

investment firm purchased it? 

Also, per state TAX commission bulletin, NO.19 of 1997, the accessor may not automatically set an assessed value ora 

taxable value at half of a property’s selling price. 

Due to the new home purchase the property taxes have quadrupled and the SEV followed the sell which is illegal. The 

home Is not competitive, and the property taxes are higher for this home than the property taxes that was listed for $2M. 

We cannot afford to keep this property and live in Detroit paying $25,000, The sq footage documented with the city is 

_ 

incorrect and is much higher than itis. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

Did you protest the Assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? | Yes 

JNo 

If Yos, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [] March 

[J wuty 

[1 December 

if No, check the applicable reason(s): 

Not required to attend 

Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

[| Appealing a purported Clericat Error or Mutua) Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

Appealing within 36 days of State Tax Commission Order

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation

Page 4

STATE

Page 5

Fe

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

Linda Lewis,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091

City of Detroit,

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: November 13, 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

Linda Lewis

59 Sand Bar

Detroit , MI 48214

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

Linda Lewis,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091

City of Detroit,

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: November 13, 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 

Nov 13 204 

4 

EE 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. 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 “T; 

Pa 

ML 

Last Name/Company Name 

lewis 

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

ve Sad 

S 

State 

ZIP Co 

Debris 

wm" 

Ty aid 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

212 25 H-004e 

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 

Pinata 

T_ 

| Pinch m 

Firm Name (ifanly) 

Address (No., Street, P.0. Box or Rural Route) 

QO 

Weodwand &wve. 

CityorTown 

State 

ZIP Cade 

Dehrpte 

MI | 4g20] 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

23-354 - a0de 

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

ange la. Lpinch@ ama cco 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels are you | [] ves* 

No** 

appealing? 

*if yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels.

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 all that apply) 

4 True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Poverty Exemption 

[1 Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[7] Disabled Veterans Exemption 

=? Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[3 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[ Exemption from Taxation (other than the denial of a 

[J Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

59 Sand Bar vs. the other properties. Originally when the home was purchased the taxes were $6,500 for the year. The 

—- 

previous owner was an investor and from what 

| was told investors pay higher taxes. We were under the assumption that 

the property taxes would go down once a resident owned it. To our surprise the property taxes did the opposite, They went 

from $6,500 with an investor to $25,000 with an owner occupied. This drastic increase in property taxes does not make 

the property competitive, We have to be competitive in the neighborhood. The home located at 59 Sand Bar is the 

smallest home in the neighborhood, but the the taxes far exceed the other homes that are extremely bigger in size. 

The property taxes for 51 Sand Bar are $700 

The Property taxes for 82 Sand Bar are $2,000 

The property taxes for 58 Sand Bar are $1900 

The property taxes for 162 Sand Bar are $1600 

The property taxes for 74 Sand Bar are 8,000 

The property taxes for 59 Sand Bar are $25,000 

The city assessor sald that when we purchased the home, it became uncapped. Why wasn't it uncapped when the 

investment firm purchased it? 

Also, per state TAX commission bulletin, NO.19 of 1997, the accessor may not automatically set an assessed value ora 

taxable value at half of a property’s selling price. 

Due to the new home purchase the property taxes have quadrupled and the SEV followed the sell which is illegal. The 

home Is not competitive, and the property taxes are higher for this home than the property taxes that was listed for $2M. 

We cannot afford to keep this property and live in Detroit paying $25,000, The sq footage documented with the city is 

_ 

incorrect and is much higher than itis. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

Did you protest the Assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? | Yes 

JNo 

If Yos, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [] March 

[J wuty 

[1 December 

if No, check the applicable reason(s): 

Not required to attend 

Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

[| Appealing a purported Clericat Error or Mutua) Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

Appealing within 36 days of State Tax Commission Order

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation

Page 4

STATE

Page 5

Fe

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.