Mark L Supal, Petitioner V Township Of Lexington, 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 

Mark L Supal, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178 

 

Lexington Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal. The pleadings and accompanying documentation indicate that 

Petitioner is appealing the true cash and state equalized values for Parcel No. 76-150-

034-400-100-00 for the 2024 tax year. The Tribunal has no authority over that parcel 

under MCL 205.735a(3), however, because Petitioner failed to appeal the assessment 

to the March Board of Review (BOR) prior to initiating an appeal to the Tribunal. A final 

decision of the BOR is a prerequisite for invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.1 

 

Petitioner’s failure to complete the prerequisite step to appeal to the BOR is a failure to 

invoke the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.2 In Sixarp, the Michigan 

Supreme Court reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction is statutory by nature. The Court stated: 

 

MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that 

governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” 

We therefore overrule Parkview3 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the 

protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere 

“procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and 

not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if 

necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived 

the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.4 

 

The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon by the Sixarp court is applicable 

in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction prerequisite that a 

residential valuation be appealed to the March BOR prior to a petition being filed with 

the Tribunal. MCL 205.735a(3) controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The 

 

1 See MCL 205.731. 

2 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8. 

3 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 

4 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004178 

Page 2 of 3 

 

Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.5 “[S]imply 

because the plaintiffs' underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and may even be 

meritorious, does not excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim within the 

applicable statutory period of limitation.”6 

 

The Tribunal notes that the petition in this case contends that Petitioner did not receive 

Respondent’s notices of assessment. This contention of improper notice, if actionable, 

would require a determination by an applicable authority that the purported error 

resulted in a due-process violation. As explained above, the Tribunal lacks any 

equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. Jurisdiction as a result 

of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory obligation, if there was 

any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as a matter of equity.7 

Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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 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

Page 3

M

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

Page 1

ARCHIVED

Valuation Report

DB:

Lexington Twp 2024

02/12/2025

10:01 AM

 99,600 99,600 99,600 41,155 41,155 0

2024 Assessed MBOR S.E.V. Capped ->Taxable<- PRE/MBT

 0 27,600 0 0 1,959 0

2024 New Eq. Adjustment Loss Additions Tax Adjustment Losses

 72,000 72,000 72,000 39,196 5.00

2023 Assessed MBOR S.E.V. Base for Cap C.P.I.

Est. TCV/Total Floor Area = 207.50

2024 Est. T.C.V. 150-034-400-100-00 = 199,203

 ECF (TWPSW.SOUTHWEST SEC 20,22&23, 26-35) 0.903 => TCV: 144,174

Notes: 

 Totals: 190,072 159,661

 Comp.Shingle 672 11,868 9,969 

Carports

 Treated Wood 448 7,571 6,360 

Deck

 CPP 448 7,544 6,337 

Porches

 Water Well, 200 Feet 1 11,581 9,728 

 1000 Gal Septic 1 5,244 4,405 

Water/Sewer

 3 Fixture Bath 1 5,008 4,207 

Plumbing

Other Additions/Adjustments

 Total: 141,256 118,655

1+ Story Siding Slab 960 

Stories Exterior Foundation Size Cost New Depr. Cost 

Building Areas

Phy/Ab.Phy/Func/Econ/Comb. % Good=84/100/100/100/84

Ground Area = 960 SF Floor Area = 960 SF.

(11) Heating System: Forced Air w/ Ducts 

 

Cost Est. for Res. Bldg: 1 Single Family 1 STORY Cls C Blt 1995

 10.00 Total Acres Total Est. Land Value = 55,029

METES AND BOUNDS RES 10.000 Acres 5,503 100 55,029

Description Frontage Depth Front Depth Rate %Adj. Reason Value

 * Factors *

Land Value Estimates for Land Table TWPMB.TWPMB.TWP RESIDENTIAL

Map #: LEXINGTON TOWNSHIP , 

Property Class: 401 6139 SHERIDAN LINE 

76-150-034-400-100-00 2024 Est. T.C.V. SUPAL MARK & MIROSLAWA

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

Valuation Report

DB:

Lexington Twp 2023

02/12/2025

10:05 AM

 72,000 72,000 72,000 39,196 39,196 0

2023 Assessed MBOR S.E.V. Capped ->Taxable<- PRE/MBT

 0 6,800 0 0 1,866 0

2023 New Eq. Adjustment Loss Additions Tax Adjustment Losses

 65,200 65,200 65,200 37,330 5.00

2022 Assessed MBOR S.E.V. Base for Cap C.P.I.

Est. TCV/Total Floor Area = 150.09

2023 Est. T.C.V. 150-034-400-100-00 = 144,085

 ECF (TWPSW.SOUTHWEST SEC 20,22&23, 26-35) 0.766 => TCV: 113,437

Notes: 

 Totals: 176,299 148,090

 Comp.Shingle 672 11,007 9,246 

Carports

 Treated Wood 448 7,020 5,897 

Deck

 CPP 448 6,998 5,878 

Porches

 Water Well, 200 Feet 1 10,743 9,024 

 1000 Gal Septic 1 4,864 4,086 

Water/Sewer

 3 Fixture Bath 1 4,646 3,903 

Plumbing

Other Additions/Adjustments

 Total: 131,021 110,056

1+ Story Siding Slab 960 

Stories Exterior Foundation Size Cost New Depr. Cost 

Building Areas

Phy/Ab.Phy/Func/Econ/Comb. % Good=84/100/100/100/84

Ground Area = 960 SF Floor Area = 960 SF.

(11) Heating System: Forced Air w/ Ducts 

 

Cost Est. for Res. Bldg: 1 Single Family 1 STORY Cls C Blt 0

 10.00 Total Acres Total Est. Land Value = 30,648

METES AND BOUNDS RES 10.000 Acres 3,065 100 30,648

Description Frontage Depth Front Depth Rate %Adj. Reason Value

 * Factors *

Land Value Estimates for Land Table TWPMB.TWPMB.METES AND BOUNDS RESIDENTIAL

Map #: LEXINGTON TOWNSHIP , 

Property Class: 401 6139 SHERIDAN LINE 

76-150-034-400-100-00 2023 Est. T.C.V. SUPAL MARK & MIROSLAWA

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

This document will serve as evidence for Michigan Tax Tribunal docket 24-004178 and will discuss the 2023 

and 2024 Valuation Reports for 6139 Sheridan Line in Lexington Twp., property tax ID 150-034-400-100-00. 

The home Is 960 sq ft and is 32 years old. 

Looking at the data from the assessor, there are items that concern the petitioner. Typically, the building 

cost should include such obvious items as plumbing but for comparison’s sake, individual costs of items 

will be compared as shown in Table 1 below. Besides differences in costs, there is a difference in the 

Economic Condition Factor (ECF) and big difference in the land value determined by the assessor. 

Table1 

 

Assessor’s 

Calcs ($) 

2024 

Assessor’s 

Calcs ($) 

2023 

My Calcs ($) for 2024 

Building Cost (960 sq ft) 

141,256 

131,921 

134,400 ($140/sq ft) 

Plumbing 

5,008 

4,646 

2500 

Septic System 

5,244 

4,864 

3,800 

Well (100 ft not 200 ft) 

11,581 

10,743 

4,500 (used $45 per ft) 

Porch? Slab (measures 34 

x 13 as stated) (448 sq ft) 

7,544 

6,998 

2,240 (5 per sq ft) 

Deck (measures 24 x 14) 

(336 sq ft not 448 sq ft) 

7,571 

7,020 

5,040 (15 per sq ft) 

Carport (measures 20 x 

13) (260 not 672 sq ft) 

11,868 

($17 per 

sq ft) 

11,007 

4,590 

 

 

 

 

Totals: 

190,072 

176,299 

157,070 

Depreciation Cost (84%) 

159,661 

148,090 

131,938 

ECF 

0.903 

0.766 

0.863 (study nearest) 

TCV 

144,174 

113,437 

113,863 

 

 

 

 

Land Value 

55,029 

30,648 

30,648 (per 2023) + 3% for and 

updated value of 31,567 

Total TCV 

199,203 

144,085 

145,430 

AV (half of the total TCV 

99,600 

72,000 

72,715 

Notes: Data taken from Angie’s List and Google AI searches 

Info from Angie.com https://www.angi.com/articles/concrete-slab-cost.htm 

Building Costs: In January 2025, the cost to build a house in Michigan ranges from $130 to $220 per square foot, depending on 

the home's size, style, and other factors. 

Septic System: The cost of a septic system in Michigan can range from $3,500 to $20,000 

Well: Drilling a residential water well costs $25 to $65 per foot 

Concrete: The average cost for a concrete slab typically ranges between $4.34 and $7.73 per square foot. 

Deck: In Michigan, the cost to build a deck can range from $15 to $20 per square foot for pressure-treated wood. 

Carport: The average carport cost is $6,238, but a carport that's big enough to provide cover for a single car can cost as little as 

$300. The carport in question is simply an extension of the home’s roof rafters. 

Cost to Clear Land in Michigan: The cost to clear land in 2025 per acre is $1500 to $2100 for lightly forested lots and $3300 to 

$5600 for highly wooded land. Therefore, on average, 10 acres will cost $20,000 to clear.

Page 2

Explanation of ECF Used 

The value used by the petitioner for the ECF is based off a report published on the Lexington Township’s 

website (https://www.lexingtontownship.org/taxes/). The report is titled Lexington Township Old M-51 Lots 

ECF Study 2024. The property in question is parcel 150-034-400-100-00. Upon viewing the report, the 

petition could not find any analysis of section 34 (a one square mile section) where the property is situated. 

Looking at the Valuation Report, the property was thrown into a collection of sections 20, 22, 23 and 26-35 

which are not near the property. The relevant sections that should have studies are shown in Figure 1 below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only section close is 26 which includes very expensive and desirable golf course homes. Below are the 

homes used in the study area for section 26 and the final calculated ECF value of 0.863. This is the value 

used in the petitioner’s analysis. 

Lexington Township Old M-51 Lots ECF Study 2024 

 

Explanation of Land Value 

On average, land value increases by around 2-3 percent per year. In 2023 the land value of the 10 acres was 

$30,648 as shown in the Valuation Report for 2023. If you add in an increase of 3%, the 2024 value should be 

$31,567 and not $55,029. The land has no agriculture value or potential for development as it is land locked. 

The jump in land value to $55,029 from $30,648 in the course of one-year computes to an increase of 80% 

which is over exaggerated. 

Based on the petitioner’s analysis above, please consider the AV of the property for 2024-25 to be close to 

$72,715 as shown in Table 1 above. 

26 

35 

33 

27 

34 

28 

Golf 

Course 

Worth Twp

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

Mark L Supal,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Township Of Lexington,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this 

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference 

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between 

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

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

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Page 2 of 6

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

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: February 5, 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 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

Mark L Supal,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Township Of Lexington,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 4

MTT Docket

Page 5

STA

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JAN 3-0 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24-004178 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

Mt: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Lexington Township 

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

County: 

. 

7227 Huron Ave, Ste 200 

Sanilac 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Lexington 

MI 

48450 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

810 359-5500 

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

assessormail@gmail.com 

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

First Name: 

Last Name: 

Arthur 

Ww 

Schlichting 

rene Lexington Twp Assessor 

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

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number; 

Fax Number: 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of §0% or more? 

[| Yes 

[0%] No 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

if not, list which parcels adjoin one another. 

ves 

[No 

Not Applicable

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Petitioner has no standing. 

The Assessment Change Notice was received timely by petitioner. The copy of the 

Notice submitted by petitioner in response to default is the Notice mailed to petitioner on 

February 26, 2024. 

This format of Notice only exists as mailed by Lexington Township's Mailing 

contractor, there are no second copies and the township cannot produce the Notice in 

this format. There is no possible way to receive this Notice except by the February 2024 

mailing of the Notice as required prior to the 2024 March Board of Review. 

The True Cash Value is correct per statute. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

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

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

No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 0 March 

[I] July 

[Ml] December 

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

Yes 

0 No 

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

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

M No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment{(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? 1] Yes 

No 

if yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

J Yes 

No 

If so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at 

a BOR? 0 Yes 

0 No 

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

[J July 

[7] December 

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

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRIGULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption at a BOR? [I] Yes 

OJ No 

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

[J July 

[7] December 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

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

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you believe the classification should be; 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

0 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Info rmation se the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel identification Number: 

150-034-400-100-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

~~ Utility 

(check one) 

Current Assessed Value {also known as State Y= Value) as established by the BOR: 

$99,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$41,155 

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

$200,000 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This Is your contention of Assessed Valle. 

$100,000 

Ifyou believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 

Signature srequigd” >

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Mark L Supal, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

SMALL

Page 5

Hidi

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 

Mark L Supal, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178 

 

Lexington Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER SETTING ASIDE PETITIONER’S DEFAULT 

 

On December 20, 2024, Petitioner filed a response to the Tribunal’s December 18, 

2024, Order of Default. The response includes a letter to the Tribunal and the subject 

property’s 2024 Notice of Assessment. 

 

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

was placed in default because they did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the 

appeal. However, the petition indicates that Petitioner did not appeal the assessment to 

Respondent’s March Board of Review (BOR) and also indicates that Petitioner did not 

receive the assessment notice. Petitioner timely responded to the Order of Default and 

has now included the subject assessment notice. The Tribunal finds that Petitioner did 

not appeal the assessment to the March BOR prior to commencing the Tribunal appeal 

as required by statute.1 Petitioner contends they did not receive the notice, and as a 

result, allowing the case to proceed to hearing to make findings of fact with respect to 

the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over this case is appropriate.2 As such, the Tribunal finds 

good cause to grant the motion and set aside the default. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Default is SET ASIDE. 

 

 

Entered: January 14, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 MCL 205.735a(3). 

2 See Oak Park Crown Pointe, LLC v City of Oak Park, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan 

Court of Appeals, issued December 12, 2019 (Docket No. 345819).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004178 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

RECEIVED 

DEC 27 2024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

December 19, 2024 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

611 W Ottawa St. 

Lansing, Michigan 48933 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The is regarding MTT Docket No. 24-0041 78 

| received a Notice of Action entered on December 18, 2024, that states 

| did not send a 

copy of the notice giving rise to an appeal. 

| called the Tribunal, and they informed me to 

send a document such as a Notice of Assessment which 

| am including in this letter. 

Thank you 

Mark Supal 

961 S. Renaud 

Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 

(313) 938-4172 

marksupal@yahoo.com 

Sincerely, 

Mark Supal 

Dd pn

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Mark L Supal, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178 

Township Of Lexington, 

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. 

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). 

) 

DRT 

By: 

. 

allie 

Ff « Nal 

Entered: December 18, 2024 

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 3

Hitigon Depadmant of Treasury. 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

a 

This form is issued under the autharity of A. 206 of 1893, Sec. 211.24 (¢) and Sec.211.34c, as amended. This is a model assessment notice lo be used by the local assessor. 

FROM 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

LEXINGTON TWP ASSESSOR 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

= 

ud 

n= 

w 

7227 HURON AVE STE 200 

76-150-034-400-100-00 

LEXINGTON, M! 48450 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

6139 SHERIDAN LINE 

y 

OWNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

“ 

_ 

" 

- 

or 

ok x *+AUTOS¥ALL FOR AADC 481 

% Exempt As "Homeowners Principal Residence™ 

00% 

SUPAL MARK 

& MIROSLAWA 

% Exempt &s “Qualified Agricultural Properfy™ 

00% 

961 

S RENAUD RD 

; 

GROSSE POINTE WOODS, 

MI 48236-1735 

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personai™: 

00% 

giginiau 

mu uig 

im 

alfa 

l 

splihjilo 

9% Exempt 

As "MBT Commercial Personal”: 

00% 

1 

Hirt 

nie 

re 

es 

Exempt As "Qualified Farest Property" 

a Yes 

No 

Exempt As "Development Property”: 

[J Yes 

No 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 

“T10N RIGE SEC 34 THE E 330 FT OF W 1650 FT OF $ 1/2'OF SE 1/4 10.0000 A. 

ACCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 

401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

PRIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION IF DIFFERENT: 

401 

(RESIDENTIALAMPROVED) 

PRIOR pad 

TENTATIVE AMOUNT 

PRIOR LAR TO 

- 

3 

YEAR: 

2024 

CURRENT YEAR 

1. TAXABLE VALUE: 

39,196 

41,155 

1,959 

2. ASSESSED VALUE: 

72,000 

99,600 

27.600 

3, TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

E 

4. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV): 

72,000 

99,600 

27,600 

5. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in2023 

WAS NOT 

6. Assessor Change Reason(s): 

The 2024 inflation rate Multiplier is: 1.05 

Questions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be directed to the Following: 

Name: 

Phone: 

Email Address: 

ASSESSOR ARTHUR SCHLICHTING 

810-359-5500 

ASSESSORMAIL@GMAIL.COM 

Warch Board of Review Appeal Information. The Board of Review will meet at the following dates and times:

Page 4

CH) Suped 

| 

y 

96) S Keraal 

- 

2024 

PM 

i 

-- 

ie 

Grosse fre Whdy MT 

wil 

: 

982.2 

1] ict igan Jax Tribunal 

Lans 2 NL 

F5709 

AED ET TIRES 

He ye fo desage bad boa 

| 

Pg dage pss 

1 f

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

Mark L Supal,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Township Of Lexington,

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.

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: December 18, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

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

Mark L Supal,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Township Of Lexington,

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.

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.ii 

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

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

By:_______________________________

Entered: December 18, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Page 4 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

ii “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

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 102024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

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 hetd in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner's Contact Information 

First Name 

MA 

Last Name/Company Name 

Mark 

L 

Supal 

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

961 S. Renaud 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Grosse Pointe Woods 

Mi 

48236 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

3139384172 

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

marksupal@yahoo.com 

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

First Name 

[TKN 

Last Name 

Firm Name {if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

2iP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcetsare you | [7] vest 

[gf No 

appealing? 

*If yas, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

 non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

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

{@ True Cash and Taxable Value 

[3 Poverty Exemption 

{J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[J Uncapping of Taxable Value 

{1 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

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

{3 Classification 

Principat Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

Right along over the past years the assessed value and corresponding state equalized 

value have crept up consistently by roughly 10%. This year, 2024, the assessed value 

and corresponding state equalized value have gone up by over 38%. The AV and 

corresponding SEV rose from $72,000 to $99,600. The past year has not been a 

gangbuster year for real estate in Croswell Michigan where the property is located. And 

I do realize that increases in the AV and SEV do not affect the property taxes 

| pay. But, 

a sale of the property is drastically affected by the increases and it concerns me. It 

doesn't make sense that there is such a big jump in AV and SEV in the one year, 2024, 

and 

| want to make sure that any increases are reasonable and fair. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

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

No 

1f Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision; [W] March 

0 July 

i] December 

if No, check the applicable reason(s): 

{7 Not required to attend 

4 Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

0 Appealing a purported Clerical Ervor or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, Include explanation in Section 6) 

[| Appealing within 36 days of State Tax Commission Order 

| Appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Uncappling

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information suse the multiple parce! form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel identification Number: 

76-150-034-400-100-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one} 

Current Assessed Value {afso known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

99,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

41,155 

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

82,310 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .8 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

41,155 

you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value, 

| have no contention with the TV. My contention is with the AV and corresponding SEV 

Section 8: Classification Information only the Mi Dep't of Treasury may appeat this Issue to the Tribunal* 

Parcel Identification Number: 

76-150-034-400-100-00 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

Agricuttural 

Commercial 

Industrial a 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utifity 

(check one)

Page 4

Cirrm

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

Mark L Supal,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Township Of Lexington,

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: December 18, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Mark L Supal,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-004178

Township Of Lexington,

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: December 18, 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 

DEC 102024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

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 hetd in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner's Contact Information 

First Name 

MA 

Last Name/Company Name 

Mark 

L 

Supal 

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

961 S. Renaud 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Grosse Pointe Woods 

Mi 

48236 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

3139384172 

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

marksupal@yahoo.com 

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

First Name 

[TKN 

Last Name 

Firm Name {if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

2iP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcetsare you | [7] vest 

[gf No 

appealing? 

*If yas, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

 non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

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

{@ True Cash and Taxable Value 

[3 Poverty Exemption 

{J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[J Uncapping of Taxable Value 

{1 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

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

{3 Classification 

Principat Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

Right along over the past years the assessed value and corresponding state equalized 

value have crept up consistently by roughly 10%. This year, 2024, the assessed value 

and corresponding state equalized value have gone up by over 38%. The AV and 

corresponding SEV rose from $72,000 to $99,600. The past year has not been a 

gangbuster year for real estate in Croswell Michigan where the property is located. And 

I do realize that increases in the AV and SEV do not affect the property taxes 

| pay. But, 

a sale of the property is drastically affected by the increases and it concerns me. It 

doesn't make sense that there is such a big jump in AV and SEV in the one year, 2024, 

and 

| want to make sure that any increases are reasonable and fair. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

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

No 

1f Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision; [W] March 

0 July 

i] December 

if No, check the applicable reason(s): 

{7 Not required to attend 

4 Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

0 Appealing a purported Clerical Ervor or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, Include explanation in Section 6) 

[| Appealing within 36 days of State Tax Commission Order 

| Appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Uncappling

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information suse the multiple parce! form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel identification Number: 

76-150-034-400-100-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one} 

Current Assessed Value {afso known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

99,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

41,155 

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

82,310 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .8 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

41,155 

you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value, 

| have no contention with the TV. My contention is with the AV and corresponding SEV 

Section 8: Classification Information only the Mi Dep't of Treasury may appeat this Issue to the Tribunal* 

Parcel Identification Number: 

76-150-034-400-100-00 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

Agricuttural 

Commercial 

Industrial a 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utifity 

(check one)

Page 4

Cirrm

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.