Magnum Equities, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Saginaw, 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 

Magnum Equities LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001727 

 

City of Saginaw, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

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

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

 

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

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

indicated. 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 

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

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001727 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

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

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

8.66%, and (ix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: March 12, 2026 

jc 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

1 

4926-1822-5557.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001727 

 

v. 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________________/ 

 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

1. 

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

 

2. 

Property Parcel Nos: 21-4453-00000 and 21-2612-00200 

 

3. 

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

 

 

Review for the tax year at issue are: 

Year

Parcel No.

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

2025

21-4453-00000

$510,000

$255,000

$218,923

2025

21-2612-00200

$38,600

$19,300

$19,300

 

 

4. 

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

 

 

purposes for the tax year at issue are: 

Year

Parcel No.

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

2025

21-4453-00000

$177,600

$88,800

$88,800

2025

21-2612-00200

$29,000

$14,500

$14,500

 

 

5. 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

years: 

 

 

NA 

 

6. 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Page 2

2 

4926-1822-5557.1 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that refunds shall 

be made payable jointly to Petitioner named herein and its 

counsel, Foley & Lardner LLP, and sent in care of such 

counsel. Calculations of the refund amount shall also be sent 

to Petitioner’s counsel at the same address. 

 

 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW 

Attorneys Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

By: /s/ Jason Conti 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Amy L. Lusk (with permission 

 

 

Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

 

 

 

Amy L. Lusk (P63702) 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

 

 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

(313) 234-7177 

 

 

 

 

(989) 759-1404 

 

Dated: March 9, 2026 

 

 

 

 

Dated: March 9, 2026

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

1 

4926-1822-5557.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001727 

 

v. 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________________/ 

 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

1. 

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

 

2. 

Property Parcel Nos: 21-4453-00000 and 21-2612-00200 

 

3. 

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

 

 

Review for the tax year at issue are: 

Year

Parcel No.

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

2025

21-4453-00000

$510,000

$255,000

$218,923

2025

21-2612-00200

$38,600

$19,300

$19,300

 

 

4. 

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

 

 

purposes for the tax year at issue are: 

Year

Parcel No.

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

2025

21-4453-00000

$177,600

$88,800

$88,800

2025

21-2612-00200

$29,000

$14,500

$14,500

 

 

5. 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

years: 

 

 

NA 

 

6. 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

Page 2

2 

4926-1822-5557.1 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that refunds shall 

be made payable jointly to Petitioner named herein and its 

counsel, Foley & Lardner LLP, and sent in care of such 

counsel. Calculations of the refund amount shall also be sent 

to Petitioner’s counsel at the same address. 

 

 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW 

Attorneys Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

By: /s/ Jason Conti 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Amy L. Lusk (with permission 

 

 

Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

 

 

 

Amy L. Lusk (P63702) 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

 

 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

(313) 234-7177 

 

 

 

 

(989) 759-1404 

 

Dated: March 9, 2026 

 

 

 

 

Dated: March 9, 2026

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

NOTICE OF NOVEMBER 2 - 13, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

Magnum Equities, LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Saginaw,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-001727

Please be advised that 25-001727 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing November 02, 2026. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be 

notified at least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not 

necessarily occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no 

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure” 

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a 

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the 

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and 

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are 

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket 

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and 

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for 

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents 

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a 

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or 

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to 

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not 

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing 

for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A party, representative, or interested 

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII 

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The 

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages 

of the Tribunal’s website. 

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s 

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-001727

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties 

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being 

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure 

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures 

by July 6, 2026. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless 

disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though admissible) 

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing 

Statements by July 6, 2026. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will 

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the 

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding 

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in 

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

July 6, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that 

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating 

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted 

during

Page 3

MTT

Page 4

STA

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

RECET =D 

SEPLT 

3 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, 

Petitioner, 

V. 

CITY OF SAGINAW, a Michigan 

municipal corporation 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET NO: 25-001727 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

By: Jason Conti (P55617) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 234-7177 

jconti@foley.com 

City of Saginaw 

By: Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney 

Attorney for Respondent 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

(989) 759-1404 

alusk@saginaw-mi.com 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION 

Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, answers 

Petitioner's Petition and says as follows: 

1. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 1, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 2, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner 

to its proofs. 

3. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Respondent DENIES 

in the manner 

andform stated and forthereason same are untrue. Petitionerdetermined the taxable 

and assessed values of the Subject Property to be significantly less than portrayed by

Page 2

4. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner fo its proofs. 

5. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner 

to its proofs. 

6. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Respondent DENIES 

in the manner 

and for stated and for the reason same are untrue. Respondentasserts there is no 

actionable dispute at issue. 

7. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7, Respondent DENIES 

in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Neither Petitioner, northe prior 

owner 

of the Subject Property, timely filed an appeal of the tax assessment 

with the 

local Board of Review. 

Petitioner did not even acquire ownership of the Subject 

Property until June 18, 2025, and lacks standing to bring this action. 

8. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Respondent DENIES 

in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

a. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8a, Respondent DENIES 

in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

b. 

In response fo the allegations of Paragraph 8b, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

c. 

In response fo the allegations of Paragraph 8c, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

d. 

In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8d, Respondent DENIES 

in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

Wherefore, Respondentrequests that the Tax Tribunal deny Petitioner's request 

for relief. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 3, 2025 

By: 

Is] Amy, £. funk, 

Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney 

City of Saginaw 

Attorney for Respondent 

1315 8. Washington Avenue 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601

Page 3

RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, hereby 

asserts the following as Affirmative Defenses: 

1. 

Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. 

2. 

Petitioner failed to state 

a claim against Respondent upon which relief could be 

granted. 

3. 

The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

4. 

The Tribunal lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties. 

5. 

Petitioner has failed to file this case in the proper venue. 

6. 

Pelitioner has failed to mitigate its alleged damages. 

7. 

Respondent was not properly served. 

8. 

Petitioner's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, estoppel, laches, and/or 

unclean hands. 

9. 

Respondent is entitled to governmental immunity. 

10. Petitioner's claims are 

barred, 

in whole or 

in 

part, 

by the applicable statute 

of 

limitations. 

11. Petitioner's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they are moot. 

12. Petitioner lacks standing to appeal the tax assessment. 

13.Respondentreserves the right 

to alter, amend, add, modify, or delete any or all of its

Page 4

STATE OF

Page 5

C

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT DOCKET NO: 25-001727 

 

 

V. 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, a Michigan 

municipal corporation 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

 

 

City of Saginaw 

By: Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

By: Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

(313) 234-7177 

 

 

 

(989) 759-1404 

jconti@foley.com 

 

 

 

alusk@saginaw-mi.com 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

 

Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, answers 

Petitioner’s Petition and says as follows: 

 

1. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 1, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 2, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

3. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Petitioner determined the taxable 

and assessed values of the Subject Property to be significantly less than portrayed by 

Petitioner and are as follows: 

Parcel No. 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

21-4453-00000 

$255,000 

$218,923 

21-2612-00200 

$19,300 

$19,300

Page 2

4. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

5. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and for stated and for the reason same are untrue. Respondent asserts there is no 

actionable dispute at issue. 

 

7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Neither Petitioner, nor the prior 

owner of the Subject Property, timely filed an appeal of the tax assessment with the 

local Board of Review. Petitioner did not even acquire ownership of the Subject 

Property until June 18, 2025, and lacks standing to bring this action. 

 

8. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

 

a. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8a, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

b. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8b, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

c. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8c, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

d. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8d, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

 

Wherefore, Respondent requests that the Tax Tribunal deny Petitioner’s request 

for relief. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Dated: September 3, 2025 

By: 

 

/s/ Amy L. Lusk 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Saginaw 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601

Page 3

RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

 

Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, hereby 

asserts the following as Affirmative Defenses: 

 

1. Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. 

 

2. Petitioner failed to state a claim against Respondent upon which relief could be 

granted. 

 

3. The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

 

4. The Tribunal lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties. 

 

5. Petitioner has failed to file this case in the proper venue. 

 

6. Petitioner has failed to mitigate its alleged damages. 

 

7. Respondent was not properly served. 

 

8. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, estoppel, laches, and/or 

unclean hands. 

 

9. Respondent is entitled to governmental immunity. 

 

10. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the

Page 4

STATE OF

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-001727

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Saginaw (SAGINAW)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

Amy

M.I.

Last Name

Lusk

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

City of Saginaw

City or Town

Saginaw

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48601

Telephone Number

989-759-1404

Fax Number

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

alusk@saginaw-mi.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Amy

M.I.

L.

Last Name

Lusk

Firm Name (if any)

City of Saginaw

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

1315 S. Washington Avenue

City or Town

Saginaw

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48601

Telephone Number

9897591404

Fax Number

9897591607

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

alusk@saginaw-mi.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Amy L. Lusk

/s/

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT DOCKET NO: 25-001727 

 

 

V. 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, a Michigan 

municipal corporation 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

 

 

City of Saginaw 

By: Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

By: Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

(313) 234-7177 

 

 

 

(989) 759-1404 

jconti@foley.com 

 

 

 

alusk@saginaw-mi.com 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

 

Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, answers 

Petitioner’s Petition and says as follows: 

 

1. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 1, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 2, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

3. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Petitioner determined the taxable 

and assessed values of the Subject Property to be significantly less than portrayed by 

Petitioner and are as follows: 

Parcel No. 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

21-4453-00000 

$255,000 

$218,923 

21-2612-00200 

$19,300 

$19,300

Page 2

4. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

5. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR 

DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and for stated and for the reason same are untrue. Respondent asserts there is no 

actionable dispute at issue. 

 

7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Neither Petitioner, nor the prior 

owner of the Subject Property, timely filed an appeal of the tax assessment with the 

local Board of Review. Petitioner did not even acquire ownership of the Subject 

Property until June 18, 2025, and lacks standing to bring this action. 

 

8. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Respondent DENIES in the manner 

and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

 

a. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8a, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

b. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8b, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

c. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8c, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

d. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8d, Respondent DENIES in the 

manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. 

 

Wherefore, Respondent requests that the Tax Tribunal deny Petitioner’s request 

for relief. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Dated: September 3, 2025 

By: 

 

/s/ Amy L. Lusk 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Saginaw 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601

Page 3

RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

 

Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, hereby 

asserts the following as Affirmative Defenses: 

 

1. Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. 

 

2. Petitioner failed to state a claim against Respondent upon which relief could be 

granted. 

 

3. The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

 

4. The Tribunal lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties. 

 

5. Petitioner has failed to file this case in the proper venue. 

 

6. Petitioner has failed to mitigate its alleged damages. 

 

7. Respondent was not properly served. 

 

8. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, estoppel, laches, and/or 

unclean hands. 

 

9. Respondent is entitled to governmental immunity. 

 

10. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the

Page 4

STATE OF

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-001727

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Saginaw (SAGINAW)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

Amy

M.I.

Last Name

Lusk

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

City of Saginaw

City or Town

Saginaw

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48601

Telephone Number

989-759-1404

Fax Number

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

alusk@saginaw-mi.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Amy

M.I.

L.

Last Name

Lusk

Firm Name (if any)

City of Saginaw

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

1315 S. Washington Avenue

City or Town

Saginaw

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48601

Telephone Number

9897591404

Fax Number

9897591607

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

alusk@saginaw-mi.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Amy L. Lusk

/s/

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

Page 1

4827-3213-0670.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC, 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001727 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel Nos. 

21-4453-00000 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

21-2612-00200 

 

v 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

________________________________________/ 

 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By: Jason Conti (P55617) 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 234-7100 

jconti@foley.com 

_____________________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On August 25, 2025, I caused to be served, via the methods listed below, a copy of Petitioner’s 

Petition for 2025 Tax Year, Notice of Docket Number, and this Proof of Service on: 

Saginaw County Clerk 

111 S. Michigan Avenue 

Saginaw, Michigan 48602 

via U.S. mail 

Saginaw County Equalization 

Director 

111 S. Michigan Avenue 

Saginaw, Michigan 48602 

via U.S. mail

Saginaw Public Schools 

Secretary 

550 Millard Street 

Saginaw, Michigan 48607 

 via U.S. mail 

 

State Treasurer 

Michigan Dep’t of Treasury 

Treasury Building 

430 W. Allegan Street 

Lansing, Michigan 48922 

 via U.S. mail 

 

 

 

Saginaw City Clerk 

1315 S. Washington Avenue 

 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

via Certified Mail 

 

City of Saginaw Assessor 

1315 South Washington Ave. 

Saginaw, Michigan 48601 

via Certified Mail

Page 2

2 

4827-3213-0670.1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: s/ Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 (313) 234-7100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 jconti@foley.com

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

Page 1

1 

4898-6618-0422.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC, 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. _____________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel Nos. 21-4453-00000 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 21-2612-00200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________________/ 

 

PETITION FOR THE 2025 TAX YEAR 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Foley & Lardner LLP, states: 

 

1. 

Petitioner’s principal office address is 24500 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 100, Southfield, 

Michigan 48075. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on contiguous real property 

tax parcel nos. 21-4453-00000 and 21-2612-00200 (collectively, the “Subject Property”), also known as 

3405-19 E Genesee, Saginaw, Michigan. 

 

2. 

Respondent City of Saginaw (“Respondent”) assesses and collects property taxes on the 

Subject Property. 

 

3. 

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable and assessed values of the Subject Property 

to be as follows (which will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative 

equalization factor): 

Parcel No. 

AV 

TV 

21-4453-00000 

$300,000 

$300,000 

21-2612-00200 

$30,000 

$30,000

Page 2

2 

4898-6618-0422.1 

 

4. 

The Subject Property is classified as Commercial Real. The Subject Property is presently 

used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that the Subject Property was 

originally designed to be used for Commercial purposes. 

 

5. 

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

and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

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

relative to the value of a loss. 

 

7. 

If P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest for the Subject Property, then a 

board of review protest was filed in March, 2025. 

 

8. 

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

Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as 

a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

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

the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

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

higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

 

 

(c) 

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

upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of the Subject Property that is 

taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and 

 

 

(d) 

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

mode of assessment adopted by Respondent discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

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

Page 3

3 

4898-6618-0422.1 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order reducing the 2024 taxable 

values and state equalized values of the Subject Property as follows: 

Parcel No. 

AV 

TV 

21-4453-00000 

$100,000 

$100,000 

21-2612-00200 

$5,000 

$5,000 

 

and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and 

costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason Conti 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(313) 234-7177 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jconti@foley.com 

 

 

Dated: May 29, 2025

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Magnum Equities, LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-001727

City Of Saginaw, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: __Tribunal Clerk________

Entered: July 22, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

1 

4898-6618-0422.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC, 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. _____________ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel Nos. 21-4453-00000 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 21-2612-00200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF SAGINAW, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________________/ 

 

PETITION FOR THE 2025 TAX YEAR 

 

 

MAGNUM EQUITIES, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Foley & Lardner LLP, states: 

 

1. 

Petitioner’s principal office address is 24500 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 100, Southfield, 

Michigan 48075. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on contiguous real property 

tax parcel nos. 21-4453-00000 and 21-2612-00200 (collectively, the “Subject Property”), also known as 

3405-19 E Genesee, Saginaw, Michigan. 

 

2. 

Respondent City of Saginaw (“Respondent”) assesses and collects property taxes on the 

Subject Property. 

 

3. 

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable and assessed values of the Subject Property 

to be as follows (which will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative 

equalization factor): 

Parcel No. 

AV 

TV 

21-4453-00000 

$300,000 

$300,000 

21-2612-00200 

$30,000 

$30,000

Page 2

2 

4898-6618-0422.1 

 

4. 

The Subject Property is classified as Commercial Real. The Subject Property is presently 

used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that the Subject Property was 

originally designed to be used for Commercial purposes. 

 

5. 

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

and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

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

relative to the value of a loss. 

 

7. 

If P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest for the Subject Property, then a 

board of review protest was filed in March, 2025. 

 

8. 

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

Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as 

a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

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

the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

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

higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

 

 

(c) 

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

upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of the Subject Property that is 

taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and 

 

 

(d) 

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

mode of assessment adopted by Respondent discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

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

Page 3

3 

4898-6618-0422.1 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order reducing the 2024 taxable 

values and state equalized values of the Subject Property as follows: 

Parcel No. 

AV 

TV 

21-4453-00000 

$100,000 

$100,000 

21-2612-00200 

$5,000 

$5,000 

 

and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and 

costs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason Conti 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Conti (P55617) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(313) 234-7177 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jconti@foley.com 

 

 

Dated: May 29, 2025

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

Magnum Equities, LLC

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

24500 Northwestern Hwy.

Suite 100

City or Town

Southfield

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48075

Telephone Number

3132347177

Fax Number

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

jconti@foley.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jason

M.I.

Last Name

Conti

Firm Name (if any)

Foley & Lardner LLP

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

500 Woodward Ave, Ste 2700

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

313-234-7177

Fax Number

313-234-2800

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

jconti@foley.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

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

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?2

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

3405-19 E. Genesee

Saginaw

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

County Of Saginaw (SAGINAW)

County

Saginaw

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

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

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

21-4453-00000

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

300000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

300000

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

200000

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

100000

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

Parcel Number:

21-2612-00200

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

30000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

30000

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

10000

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

5000

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

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

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

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification? 

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

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

Fee Information

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

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

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.