Mall At Briarwood LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Ann Arbor 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 

Mall at Briarwood LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000490 

 

City of Ann Arbor, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and the submitted Stipulation for Entry 

of Consent Judgment (Stipulation) and finds that the Stipulation meets all filing and 

statutory requirements.1 As such, the Tribunal shall enter the 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 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000490 

Page 2 of 2 

 

shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 

2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, 

through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 

31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at 

the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 

6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) 

after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after 

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

2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, 

through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through 

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

30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at 

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

9.47%, (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%, 

(xix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%, and (xx) after 

July 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026, at a rate of 7.85%. 

 

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. 

 

 

Entered: July 1, 2026 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Grinnell_ 

gc 

 

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

MTT No. 26-000490

Consent Judgment, Page 1 of 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEMS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Mall at Briarwood LLC

Petitioner,

v.

MTT No. 26-000490

City of Ann Arbor,

Respondent.

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT

AND CONSENT JUDGMENT

1.

The case is pending in the _X_ Entire Tribunal OR ___ Small Claims

Division.

2.

Property Parcel No: 09-12-08-100-071.

There are no other parcels at issue in this appeal.

3.

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s

Board of Review are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

2026

88,847,800

44,423,900

44,423,900

4.

The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for

settlement purposes are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

2026

63,000,000

31,500,000

31,500,000

Page 2

MTT No. 26-000490

Consent Judgment, Page 2 of 2

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 (attach additional page if necessary): n/a

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. (attach additional page if

necessary): Interest is waived provided any refund is paid within a reasonable

period of time but no later than 90 days after entry of the Consent Judgment.

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

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella, attorney for Petitioner

Date: June 25, 2026

Signature of Respondent’s authorized representative:

/s/ John W. Reiser 

John W. Reiser, attorney for Respondent

Date: June 25, 2026

[Consent Judgment will be prepared by the Tribunal.]

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-000490

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Stip for Consent Judgment

Attachment File Name: Stipulation Briarwood Mall 2026 Year fn

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 50.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 50.00

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

5TATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Mall at Briarwood, LLC, 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

City of Ann Arbor, 

 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 26-000490 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917) 

Hertz Schram PC 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1760 S. Telegraph Road 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183 

(248) 335-5000 

Ecantarella@Hertzschram.com 

John W. Reiser (P45050) 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 

Attorney for Respondent 

301 E. Huron Street, 3rd Floor 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1908 

(734) 794-6184 

Jreiser@a2gov.org 

David Suess 

Brent Auberry 

Benjamin Blair 

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

300 N. Meridian Street, Ste 2500 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

(317) 684-5112 

david.suess@faegredrinker.com 

brent.auberry@faegredrinker.com 

benjamin.blair@faegredrinker.com 

 

RESPONDENT CITY OF ANN ARBOR’S 

RESPONSE TO PETITION 

Respondent City of Ann Arbor (“Respondent”), through the Ann Arbor City 

Attorney’s Office, responds in opposition to the Petition of Mall at Briarwood, 

LLC (“Petitioner”) and states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. 

Admit.

Page 2

2 

3. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

4. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

Admit. 

6. 

Admit. 

7. 

Admit. 

8. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to (a) through (c). 

9. 

Admit. 

10. 

Admit. 

11. 

Admit. 

12. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

13. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

14. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

15. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

16. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

17. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

18. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

19. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

20. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to its contention that the 

Assessed State Equalized Value and Taxable Value are invalid, and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs as to subparagraphs (a) through (c). 

21. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

22. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 3

3 

23. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

24. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

25. 

Respondent requests the Tribunal deny this request. 

For the reasons stated above, Respondent asks the Tribunal to deny 

Petitioner’s request that the Tribunal affirm its 2026 market value and deny 

Petitioner’s request. 

Dated: June 8, 2026 

Respectfully submitted, 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 

By: 

/s/ John W. Reiser 

 

 

 

John W. Reiser (P45050) 

 

Attorney for City of Ann Arbor 

 

301 E. Huron Street, 3rd Floor 

 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1908 

 

(734) 794-6184

Page 4

4 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent City of Ann Arbor (“Respondent”), through the Ann Arbor City 

Attorney’s Office, and for its Affirmative Defenses to the Petition of Mall at 

Briarwood, LLC (“Petitioner”) states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent reserves the right to raise affirmative defenses as the 

same become apparent in the course of this litigation. 

Dated: June 8, 2026 

Respectfully submitted, 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 

By: 

/s/ John W. Reiser 

 

 

 

John W. Reiser (P45050) 

 

Attorney for City of Ann Arbor 

 

301 E. Huron Street, 3rd Floor 

 

Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1908 

 

(734) 794-6184 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I emailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Response to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to Petitioner’s attorneys at the 

address listed above this June 8, 2026. 

 /s/ Dawn Bagozzi 

 

 

 Legal Assistant

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 of 1

Docket #: 26-000490

Party Filing Document

Party Filing Document: 

 Respondent

 Respondent

 

 

If 'other', Identify: 

File

Document Type: 

 

 

fuFile:

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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Mall at Briarwood, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26-000490

Parcel ID 09-12-08-100-071

City of Ann Arbor,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR PETITION WITH DOCKET NUMBER

I hereby certify that on May27, 2026, I caused the above-referenced Petition with docket number to

be served on the following individuals and entities and in the following manner:

via Certified Mail

Assessor, City of Ann Arbor

Larcom City Hall

301 E. Huron St., Fifth Floor

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Clerk, City of Ann Arbor

Larcom City Hall

301 E. Huron St., Second Floor

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

via First Class Mail

Director, Washtenaw County Equalization

200 N. Main Street, Suite 210

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Clerk, Washtenaw County

200 N. Main Street, First Floor

Ann Arbor 48104

1

Page 2

Secretary, Ann Arbor Public Schools Board

Ann Arbor Public Schools

2555 South State Street

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

State Treasurer, Michigan Dept. of Treasury

Treasury Building

430 W. Allegan Street

Lansing, MI 48922

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

Hertz Schram PC

1760 S. Telegraph Road

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346

ecantarella@hertzschram.com 

2

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 of 1

Docket #: 26-000490

Party Filing Document

Party Filing Document: 

 Petitioner

 Petitioner

 

 

If 'other', Identify: 

File

Document Type: 

 

 

fuFile:

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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Mall at Briarwood, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26-______

Parcel ID 09-12-08-100-071

City of Ann Arbor,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

Mall at Briarwood, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys Eva Cantarella at the law firm

Hertz Schram PC and David Suess, Brent Auberry, and Benjamin Blair at the law firm Faegre

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

Petitioner is a limited liability company whose principal business address is 225 W.

Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3438.

2.

The Subject Property is a regional shopping mall known as the Briarwood Mall,

located at 100 Briarwood Circle, Ann Arbor, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 09-12-08-100-

071.

3.

The Subject Property was built in 1973 and has 362,578 square feet of gross leaseable

area (GLA).

4.

Petitioner is the party in interest, as Petitioner is responsible for paying the property

taxes on the Subject Property.

5.

Respondent City of Ann Arbor levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject

Property.

1

Page 2

6.

The Subject Property is classified Commercial and was designed for its current use

as a regional shopping mall.

7.

The Subject Property is located in Washtenaw County and is in the Ann Arbor Public

Schools school district.

8.

This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable

value.

9.

For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values for the Subject Property:

Respondent’s 2026

Value Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 09-12-08-

100-071

$44,423,900

$44,423,900

$44,423,900

10.

Petitioner did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the Board of Review.

11.

Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined that

the Subject Property has a true cash value of $88,847,800.

12.

Respondent’s determination of true cash value equates to approximately $245.04 per

GLA square foot for the Subject Property.

13.

Petitioner contends that Respondent has markedly over-valued the Subject Property.

14.

The Subject Property is 53 years old and in need of renovation.

15.

Further, the Subject Property’s parking areas need resurfacing and general

maintenance.

16.

Additionally, like all malls across the country, the Subject Property has been

challenged since at least 2009 when there was a major real-estate market correction, and, later, due

to the COVID-19 downturn.

2

Page 3

17.

Retail has yet to recover and continues to struggle, as more and more people are doing

their shopping on-line.

18.

The impact on older shopping malls in need of renovation has been particularly

devastating, as evidenced by the fact that owners of such malls have been unable to sell them at

hardly any price.

19.

Indeed, a recent Costar search revealed sales of relatively similar malls in Michigan

and adjacent states averaging less than $100 per square foot.

20.

In light of the foregoing, Petitioner contends that the 2026 assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values imposed on the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon,

are invalid and unlawful because–

(a)

The assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values exceed the amounts

permitted under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

(b)

The assessed and state-equalized values exceed the percentage of true cash

value permitted under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; and

(c)

The assessed, state-equalized and taxable values are based upon an erroneous

determination of the true cash value of the Subject Property.

21.

Petitioner contends that the true cash value of the Subject Property is $60,000,000.

22.

Therefore, the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values of the Subject

Property should be as follows:

Petitioner’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 09-12-08-

100-071

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

3

Page 4

23.

Petitioner is unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition”

or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value.

24.

Should Petitioner hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioner reserves the

right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute.

25.

Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026

assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by

Petitioner, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner any refunds attributable to such reductions,

plus allowable interest and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

Hertz Schram PC

1760 S. Telegraph Road

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346

ecantarella@hertzschram.com 

/s/ David Suess 

David Suess

/s/ Brent Auberry 

Brent Auberry

/s/ Benjamin Blair 

Benjamin Blair

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

300 N. Meridian Street, Ste 2500

Indianapolis, IN 46204

o. 317-684-5112

david.suess@faegredrinker.com 

brent.auberry@faegredrinker.com 

benjamin.blair@faegredrinker.com 

Attorneys for Petitioner

4

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Mall at Briarwood LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-000490

City Of Ann Arbor, 

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: May 27, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Mall at Briarwood, LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

MTT Docket No. 26-______

Parcel ID 09-12-08-100-071

City of Ann Arbor,

Respondent.

______________________________________________________________________________

PETITION

Mall at Briarwood, LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys Eva Cantarella at the law firm

Hertz Schram PC and David Suess, Brent Auberry, and Benjamin Blair at the law firm Faegre

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, petitions this Tribunal as follows:

1.

Petitioner is a limited liability company whose principal business address is 225 W.

Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204-3438.

2.

The Subject Property is a regional shopping mall known as the Briarwood Mall,

located at 100 Briarwood Circle, Ann Arbor, and further identified by Parcel ID No. 09-12-08-100-

071.

3.

The Subject Property was built in 1973 and has 362,578 square feet of gross leaseable

area (GLA).

4.

Petitioner is the party in interest, as Petitioner is responsible for paying the property

taxes on the Subject Property.

5.

Respondent City of Ann Arbor levies and collects the property taxes on the Subject

Property.

1

Page 2

6.

The Subject Property is classified Commercial and was designed for its current use

as a regional shopping mall.

7.

The Subject Property is located in Washtenaw County and is in the Ann Arbor Public

Schools school district.

8.

This Petition concerns issues relating to (a) valuation, (b) assessment, and (c) taxable

value.

9.

For the 2026 year, Respondent determined the following assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values for the Subject Property:

Respondent’s 2026

Value Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized

Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 09-12-08-

100-071

$44,423,900

$44,423,900

$44,423,900

10.

Petitioner did not protest Respondent’s value contentions to the Board of Review.

11.

Based on Respondent’s contention of Assessed Value, Respondent determined that

the Subject Property has a true cash value of $88,847,800.

12.

Respondent’s determination of true cash value equates to approximately $245.04 per

GLA square foot for the Subject Property.

13.

Petitioner contends that Respondent has markedly over-valued the Subject Property.

14.

The Subject Property is 53 years old and in need of renovation.

15.

Further, the Subject Property’s parking areas need resurfacing and general

maintenance.

16.

Additionally, like all malls across the country, the Subject Property has been

challenged since at least 2009 when there was a major real-estate market correction, and, later, due

to the COVID-19 downturn.

2

Page 3

17.

Retail has yet to recover and continues to struggle, as more and more people are doing

their shopping on-line.

18.

The impact on older shopping malls in need of renovation has been particularly

devastating, as evidenced by the fact that owners of such malls have been unable to sell them at

hardly any price.

19.

Indeed, a recent Costar search revealed sales of relatively similar malls in Michigan

and adjacent states averaging less than $100 per square foot.

20.

In light of the foregoing, Petitioner contends that the 2026 assessed, state-equalized,

and taxable values imposed on the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon,

are invalid and unlawful because–

(a)

The assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values exceed the amounts

permitted under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

(b)

The assessed and state-equalized values exceed the percentage of true cash

value permitted under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; and

(c)

The assessed, state-equalized and taxable values are based upon an erroneous

determination of the true cash value of the Subject Property.

21.

Petitioner contends that the true cash value of the Subject Property is $60,000,000.

22.

Therefore, the 2026 assessed, state-equalized, and taxable values of the Subject

Property should be as follows:

Petitioner’s 2026 Value

Contentions

Assessed Value

State-Equalized Value

Taxable Value

Parcel ID 09-12-08-

100-071

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

$30,000,000

3

Page 4

23.

Petitioner is unaware of any dispute concerning the value of a statutory “addition”

or “loss” in determining the Subject Property’s taxable value.

24.

Should Petitioner hereafter become aware of any such dispute, Petitioner reserves the

right to amend this Petition to reflect the dispute.

25.

Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order (i) reducing the 2026

assessed, state-equalized and taxable values of the Subject Property to the amounts contended by

Petitioner, and (ii) requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner any refunds attributable to such reductions,

plus allowable interest and costs.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Eva T. Cantarella 

Eva T. Cantarella (P51917)

Hertz Schram PC

1760 S. Telegraph Road

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183

off. (248) 335-5000; fax. (248) 335-3346

ecantarella@hertzschram.com 

/s/ David Suess 

David Suess

/s/ Brent Auberry 

Brent Auberry

/s/ Benjamin Blair 

Benjamin Blair

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

300 N. Meridian Street, Ste 2500

Indianapolis, IN 46204

o. 317-684-5112

david.suess@faegredrinker.com 

brent.auberry@faegredrinker.com 

benjamin.blair@faegredrinker.com 

Attorneys for Petitioner

4

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

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

Mall at Briarwood LLC

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

225 W. Washington Street

City or Town

Indianapolis

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46204-3438

Telephone Number

317-263-2220

Fax Number

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

mlarson@simon.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Eva

M.I.

T

Last Name

Cantarella

Firm Name (if any)

Hertz Schram PC

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

1760 S Telegraph Rd Ste 300

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302-0183

Telephone Number

248-335-5000

Fax Number

248-335-3346

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

ecantarella@hertzschram.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

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

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

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

100 Briarwood Circle

Ann Arbor

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Ann Arbor (WASHTENAW)

County

Washtenaw

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

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

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

09-12-08-100-071

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

44423900

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

44423900

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

60000000

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

30000000

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:

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

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

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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

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

Fee Information

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

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

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Eva T Cantarella

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.