Record Finder / 26-002693-TT
Michigan
Nicholas A Wilkinson Petitioner V City Of Ann Arbor Respondent
- Petitioner
- Nicholas A Wilkinson
- Respondent
- City Of Ann Arbor
Case overview
- Docket number
- 26-002693-TT
- Status
- Default Petitioner
- CaseType
- SC Property
- Division
- Small Claims Division
- County
- Washtenaw
- Judge
- No judge assigned
Docket history
| Line # | Subject | Filer | Line Ref | Enter Date/Post Mark | Fee | Related Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Proof of service of petition was received. | Not recorded | Not recorded | 10/14/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 6 | Answer was received | RESP | Not recorded | 10/14/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 5 | Documentation | Not recorded | Not recorded | 09/30/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 4 | Order of Default of Petitioner | Not recorded | Not recorded | 09/29/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 3 | Petition has been verified | PET | 1 | 09/29/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 2 | Notice of Docket Number SC | Not recorded | Not recorded | 09/29/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 1 | A petition was received. | PET | Not recorded | 07/16/2026 | $0.00 | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
Documents
Proof of Service 26-002693 - Answer.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL NICHOLAS A WILKINSON MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v. MTT Docket No. 26-002693 CITY OF ANN ARBOR, Respondent PROOF OF SERVICE Heather Hyatt, states that on October 14, 2026, she served a copy of RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM and this PROOF OF SERVICE relative to the above-captioned matter, via email, upon: NICHOLAS A WILKINSON nickwilkinson@rocketmail.com /s/ Heather Hyatt________________ Heather Hyatt, MMAO Senior Appraiser City of Ann Arbor
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.
SubsequentFiling.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
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: 26-002693 Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? Yes Party Filing Document Respondent Files Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition Attachment File Name: Proof of Service 26-002693 - Answer Fee Information Filing Fee: $ 0.00 Payment Information Payment: $ 0.00
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.
2026 MBOR DECISION LETTER - 1115 Fountain St.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION FROM 734-794-6530 CITY OF ANN ARBOR ASSESSOR'S OFFICE PO BOX 8647 ANN ARBOR, MI 48107 March 27, 2026 NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: WILKINSON NICHOLAS 1115 FOUNTAIN ST ANN ARBOR MI 48103 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address and legal description optional.): 09-09-20-302-027 1115 FOUNTAIN ST LOT 45 TWIN OAKS SUB NO 1 OF SUNSET HEIGHTS THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 401 (RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) Thank you for attending the March Board of Review. The Board has completed the review of parcel number 09-09-20-302-027 and made the following determination based on the information provided. Board of Review Comments: VALUE DETERMINED ACCURATE 2026 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 344,400 | [2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 344,400 | (If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occurred) 2026 ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 250,245 2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 250,245 2026 PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 100.0000 Contact the Assessor's Office at the address listed above or call (734) 794-6530 if you have any questions. If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding the above values, further appeal may be made to the Michigan Tax Tribunal. The appeal deadline for Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property is May 31. The appeal deadline for Residential Real Property is July 31. Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 517-335-9760 www.michigan.gov/taxtrib/ Property Classification appeals ONLY may be appealed to the State Tax Commission: State Tax Commission Classification Appeals P.0.Box 30471 Lansing MI 48909
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.
scanswer_valuation.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. 26-002693 Respondent’s Contact Information: Filer Type: Local Unit of Government Local Unit of Government: City Of Ann Arbor (WASHTENAW) First Name M.I. Last Name Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) City or Town State ZIP Code Telephone Number E-mail Address Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information, if any: First Name Jerry M.I. Last Name Markey Firm Name (if any) City of Ann Arbor Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 301 E Huron St City or Town Ann Arbor State Michigan ZIP Code 48104 Telephone Number 734-794-6530 E-mail Address assessor@a2gov.org Subject Property Information: Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? If no, list all parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. *If necessary, attach a separate sheet. N/A Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of 50% or more? Yes
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Please Explain Your Answer to this Appeal: AT THIS TIME, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THE 2026 ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUES ARE CORRECT. THERE WERE NEW AND ADDITIONS ADDED DUE TO AN ADDITION FOR THE 2026 ROLL. EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE 2026 ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUES WILL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL'S RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. Jurisdictional Issues: IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES: Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes If Yes, check which Board of Review Petitioner attended: March If No, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March Board of Review? *Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. If the July or December Board of Review revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? If yes, please cite the Board’s authority? Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? No If yes, please explain Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? No If yes, when was it issued? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE: When was the Notice of Uncapping issued? Under what statutory section was the taxable value uncapped?
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Valuation Information: Parcel Identification Number: 09-09-20-302-027 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Residential (check one) Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review: 344400 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 250245 What do you believe is the fair market value? 688800 What do you believe is the taxable value? 250245 Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Respondent’s Signature: /s/ Jerry Markey Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature: /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.
Board review decision .pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION gi (eAllop E March 27, 2026 CITY OF ANN ARBOR ASSESSOR'S OFFICE PO BOX 8647 ANN ARBOR, MI 48107 NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address and legal description optional). 09-09-20-302-027 1115 FOUNTAIN ST WILKINSON NICHOLAS 1115 FOUNTAIN ST ANN ARBOR MI 48103 LOT 45 TWIN OAKS SUB NO 1 OF SUNSET HEIGHTS THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS 401 (RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) Thank you for attending the March Board of Review. The Board has completed the review of parcel number 09-09-20-302-027 and made the following determination based on the information provided. Board of Review Comments: VALUE DETERMINED ACCURATE [2026 ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 344,400 [2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE SU 344 400 NTE : (If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occurred) 2026 ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 250,245 | 2026 "BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 250.245 2026 PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 100.0000 Contact the Assessor's Office at the address listed above or call (734) 794-6530 if you have any questions. If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding the above values, further appeal may be made to the Michigan Tax Tribunal. The appeal deadline for Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property is May 31. The appeal deadline for Residential Real Property is July 31. Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 517-335-9760 www.michigan.gov/taxtrib/ Property Classification appeals ONLY may be appealed to the State Tax Commission: State Tax Commission Classification Appeals P.O.Box 30471 Lansing MI 48909
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.
SubsequentFiling.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
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: 26-002693 Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? Yes Party Filing Document Petitioner Files Document Type: Documentation Attachment File Name: Board review decision Fee Information Filing Fee: $ 0.00 Payment Information Payment: $ 0.00
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.
SC_Order_of_Default_of_Petition.2026-09-29_14-30-02.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
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 Nicholas A Wilkinson, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002693 City Of Ann Arbor, 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 279. 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.1 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm Entered: September 29, 2026 1 “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 225(5).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-002693 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
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 Nicholas A Wilkinson, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002693 City Of Ann Arbor, 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 279. 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.2 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm Entered: September 29, 2026 2 “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
Page 4
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.
Tax Tribunal Doc.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
Appeal to adjust tax assessment on 1115 Fountain Street Date: 7/16/2026 Property owners: Nick Wilkinson nickwilkinson@rocketmail.com 734-834-9775 Anna Milanowski anna.milanowski@gmail.com 608-335-8777
Page 2
This appeal does not dispute that the construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) increased the value of the property. Rather, it requests a review of whether the increase in State Equalized Value accurately reflects the property's True Cash Value under Michigan law. My original estimate of approximately $300,000 represented the total project expenditures and not the contributory cost of the ADU itself. After completing a detailed review of all project expenses, I believe the assessment should be reconsidered for the following reasons: • The original construction cost reported to the City overstated the costs attributable to the ADU. • The project consisted of both a personal-use garage and an ADU with many shared construction costs. • ADUs are a unique property type whose market contribution should not automatically be assumed to equal either construction cost or the value of a conventional home addition. • Certain expenditures included in the original project costs are not appropriate considerations in determining True Cash Value. There are several reasons that the property should be reconsidered. 1. The original construction expenditure that I provided to the city included the cost of an entire mixed-use structure containing both a personal-use garage and an accessory dwelling unit. Because the garage and ADU share a foundation, walls, roof, and infrastructure, many costs were necessarily shared. The revised cost allocation attempts to reasonably separate the contributory cost of the ADU from the costs attributable to the garage and other non-ADU components. I provided this original number because I admittedly am a novice in the area and didn’t realize what was being asked. My original $300,000 figure represented: ● site work, ● foundation,
Page 3
● framing, ● roofing, ● utilities, ● structure, ● labor, ● finishes, ● appliances, ● furnishings, ● solar, Many of these expenses served both the lower garage and the upper apartment and a portion of these costs should not be attributed to the ADU because they also created a personal-use garage that serves the primary residence. Here is a simple breakdown of numbers. I subtracted a third of the cost from the shared construction item between the personal use garage space and the ADU. A detailed spreadsheet of every expense of this project was kept and can be provided if needed. ● Original number provided to assessor: ≈ $300,000 ● Actual total spending: $312,356 ● ADU-related construction after removing personal-use and non-contributory items: $221,082 ● Assessor's implied market increase: ≈ $327,400 I mistakenly provided a total project cost that included many components beyond the ADU. I have since prepared a more accurate cost allocation. However, even that construction cost should be considered alongside the unique market characteristics of an ADU, which is not necessarily equivalent in market contribution to a conventional expansion of the primary residence. The property's assessed value increased substantially following completion of the project. I respectfully request a review of the methodology used to determine the contributory value of the ADU and related improvements. Which leads to the second reason: 2. An ADU has different market characteristics than a conventional addition
Page 4
Conventional Addition Accessory Dwelling Unit -Expands the primary residence -Separate dwelling unit -Increases the home's living area -Separate entrance and independent use -Easily compared to larger homes -Limited comparable sales -Broad buyer appeal -Appeals differently depending on buyer needs Our total property of livable square footage (including the original house and ADU is about 1628 sq. feet. This means the city is valuing our house at $423/sq.ft. The average price per sq. ft in Ann Arbor has a range of $280-320/sq.ft. (from Realtor.com) This figure would change based on location, quality of the property, etc. 3. Some cost should not be included in the reassessment Certain expenditures included in the overall project represented repairs, maintenance, or site improvements rather than improvements that increase the property's True Cash Value. These included items such as driveway work, retaining walls, and landscaping. Under Michigan law (Mathieu-Gast Act), these types of expenditures should not automatically be treated as additions to taxable value. 4. Comparables Accessory dwelling units represent a relatively new and emerging residential property type in Ann Arbor. Because there are few to no comparable sales involving ADUs, determining their contributory market value may require careful
Page 5
consideration of their unique characteristics rather than
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.
scpetition_valuation.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 1 of 3 PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. Petitioner’s Contact Information: Filer Type: Individual Local Unit of Government: First Name Nicholas M.I. A Last Name Wilkinson Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 1115 Foutain St. City or Town Ann Arbor State Michigan ZIP Code 48103 Telephone Number 7348349775 E-mail Address nickwilkinson@rocketmail.com Subject Property Information: How many parcels are you appealing? 1 If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? *If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel N/A Property Address (No., Street) 1115 Foutain St. City or Town Ann Arbor County Washtenaw State Michigan ZIP Code 48103 Taxing Authority (City or Township) City Of Ann Arbor (WASHTENAW) Check which of the following you are appealing: (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Values Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal:
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 2 of 3 I believe that city over valued our property after we put on an ADU. Adding on an ADU is a pretty new thing in Ann Arbor and I don' t believe the city has accurately reassessed our property in a fair manner. I will attach more information on my reasonings in another document. Jurisdictional Issues: Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes If Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: March If No, please check the applicable reason(s): Year(s) Under Appeal: 1 Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal: Parcel Number: 09-09-20-302-027 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Residential (check one) Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review: 344400 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 250245 What do you believe is the fair market value? 625000 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 312500 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 227100 Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Petitioner’s Signature: /s/ Nick Wilkinson
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 3 of 3 Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature: /s/ Fee Information: If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for the filing of this appeal. 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. Property tax appeal: Residential** Non-Residential SEV or TV in contention* Filing fee*** Filing Fee** $100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? Yes
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.
SC_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2026-09-29_14-26-27.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
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 Nicholas A Wilkinson, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002693 City Of Ann Arbor, 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 281. 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: September 29, 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
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 Nicholas A Wilkinson, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002693 City Of Ann Arbor, 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 281. 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: September 29, 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.
Tax Tribunal Doc.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
Appeal to adjust tax assessment on 1115 Fountain Street Date: 7/16/2026 Property owners: Nick Wilkinson nickwilkinson@rocketmail.com 734-834-9775 Anna Milanowski anna.milanowski@gmail.com 608-335-8777
Page 2
This appeal does not dispute that the construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) increased the value of the property. Rather, it requests a review of whether the increase in State Equalized Value accurately reflects the property's True Cash Value under Michigan law. My original estimate of approximately $300,000 represented the total project expenditures and not the contributory cost of the ADU itself. After completing a detailed review of all project expenses, I believe the assessment should be reconsidered for the following reasons: • The original construction cost reported to the City overstated the costs attributable to the ADU. • The project consisted of both a personal-use garage and an ADU with many shared construction costs. • ADUs are a unique property type whose market contribution should not automatically be assumed to equal either construction cost or the value of a conventional home addition. • Certain expenditures included in the original project costs are not appropriate considerations in determining True Cash Value. There are several reasons that the property should be reconsidered. 1. The original construction expenditure that I provided to the city included the cost of an entire mixed-use structure containing both a personal-use garage and an accessory dwelling unit. Because the garage and ADU share a foundation, walls, roof, and infrastructure, many costs were necessarily shared. The revised cost allocation attempts to reasonably separate the contributory cost of the ADU from the costs attributable to the garage and other non-ADU components. I provided this original number because I admittedly am a novice in the area and didn’t realize what was being asked. My original $300,000 figure represented: ● site work, ● foundation,
Page 3
● framing, ● roofing, ● utilities, ● structure, ● labor, ● finishes, ● appliances, ● furnishings, ● solar, Many of these expenses served both the lower garage and the upper apartment and a portion of these costs should not be attributed to the ADU because they also created a personal-use garage that serves the primary residence. Here is a simple breakdown of numbers. I subtracted a third of the cost from the shared construction item between the personal use garage space and the ADU. A detailed spreadsheet of every expense of this project was kept and can be provided if needed. ● Original number provided to assessor: ≈ $300,000 ● Actual total spending: $312,356 ● ADU-related construction after removing personal-use and non-contributory items: $221,082 ● Assessor's implied market increase: ≈ $327,400 I mistakenly provided a total project cost that included many components beyond the ADU. I have since prepared a more accurate cost allocation. However, even that construction cost should be considered alongside the unique market characteristics of an ADU, which is not necessarily equivalent in market contribution to a conventional expansion of the primary residence. The property's assessed value increased substantially following completion of the project. I respectfully request a review of the methodology used to determine the contributory value of the ADU and related improvements. Which leads to the second reason: 2. An ADU has different market characteristics than a conventional addition
Page 4
Conventional Addition Accessory Dwelling Unit -Expands the primary residence -Separate dwelling unit -Increases the home's living area -Separate entrance and independent use -Easily compared to larger homes -Limited comparable sales -Broad buyer appeal -Appeals differently depending on buyer needs Our total property of livable square footage (including the original house and ADU is about 1628 sq. feet. This means the city is valuing our house at $423/sq.ft. The average price per sq. ft in Ann Arbor has a range of $280-320/sq.ft. (from Realtor.com) This figure would change based on location, quality of the property, etc. 3. Some cost should not be included in the reassessment Certain expenditures included in the overall project represented repairs, maintenance, or site improvements rather than improvements that increase the property's True Cash Value. These included items such as driveway work, retaining walls, and landscaping. Under Michigan law (Mathieu-Gast Act), these types of expenditures should not automatically be treated as additions to taxable value. 4. Comparables Accessory dwelling units represent a relatively new and emerging residential property type in Ann Arbor. Because there are few to no comparable sales involving ADUs, determining their contributory market value may require careful
Page 5
consideration of their unique characteristics rather than
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.
scpetition_valuation.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 1 of 3 PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. Petitioner’s Contact Information: Filer Type: Individual Local Unit of Government: First Name Nicholas M.I. A Last Name Wilkinson Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 1115 Foutain St. City or Town Ann Arbor State Michigan ZIP Code 48103 Telephone Number 7348349775 E-mail Address nickwilkinson@rocketmail.com Subject Property Information: How many parcels are you appealing? 1 If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? *If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel N/A Property Address (No., Street) 1115 Foutain St. City or Town Ann Arbor County Washtenaw State Michigan ZIP Code 48103 Taxing Authority (City or Township) City Of Ann Arbor (WASHTENAW) Check which of the following you are appealing: (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Values Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal:
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 2 of 3 I believe that city over valued our property after we put on an ADU. Adding on an ADU is a pretty new thing in Ann Arbor and I don' t believe the city has accurately reassessed our property in a fair manner. I will attach more information on my reasonings in another document. Jurisdictional Issues: Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? Yes If Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: March If No, please check the applicable reason(s): Year(s) Under Appeal: 1 Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal: Parcel Number: 09-09-20-302-027 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Residential (check one) Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review: 344400 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 250245 What do you believe is the fair market value? 625000 Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 312500 If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 227100 Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature Petitioner’s Signature: /s/ Nick Wilkinson
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 3 of 3 Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature: /s/ Fee Information: If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for the filing of this appeal. 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. Property tax appeal: Residential** Non-Residential SEV or TV in contention* Filing fee*** Filing Fee** $100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? Yes
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.