Nnn Reit LP Petitioner Vs. Township Of White Lake 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

NOTICE OF AUGUST 2- 13, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE

Nnn Reit Lp,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

Township Of White Lake,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 26-001166

Please be advised that 26-001166 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing August 02, 2027. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be notified at 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

covered by the order will not be published.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

Protective Order will be published.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the Tribunal’s website. 

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

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-001166

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

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

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

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

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

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

by April 5, 2027. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless 

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

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

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

Statements by April 5, 2027. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will 

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

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

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

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

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

April 5, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

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

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

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

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

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

August 2, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

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

date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s valuation 

disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified on the 

opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain 

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date 

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to

Page 3

MTT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

NNN REIT LP, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001166 

v. 

 

TOWNSHIP OF WHITE LAKE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

Integrity Tax 

Brian Thomas 

Representative for Petitioner 

6615 Brotherhood Way 

Fort Wayne, IN 46825 

(260) 637-8899 

bthomas@integritytax.com 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

Gopi P. Patel (P77727) 

Attorney for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive 

Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 

(248) 489-4100 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

gpatel@rsjalaw.com 

 

 

Respondent's Amended Answer to Petition 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Township of White Lake, by and through its Attorneys, 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Amended Answer to 

Petitioner's Petition states as follows: 

1. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

2. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

3. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same.

Page 2

2 

 

4. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

5. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

6. 

As to the allegation contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

7. 

As to the allegation contained in Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

8. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

9. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

10. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

11. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs.

Page 3

3 

 

12. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Petition, Respondent 

denies the same as untrue. 

13. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, Respondent neither admits 

nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a 

belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Township of White Lake, denies that Petitioner is 

entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and 

taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be 

dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so 

wrongfully sustained. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

& AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Jeremy J. Romer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JEREMY J. ROMER (P77287) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(248) 489-4100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

 

Dated: July 30, 2026

Page 4

4 

 

 

 

Affirmative Defenses 

 

 

For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, 

Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 

 

1. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of 

action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

 

2. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of 

law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the 

Respondent. 

 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property 

failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the 

Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 

 

4. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash 

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

 

5. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation 

that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also 

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable 

value is improper. 

 

6.

Page 5

5 

 

 

8.

Page 6

6

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: 26-001166

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

Party Filing Document 

Respondent

Files

Document Type: Amended Answer

Attachment File Name: 

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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

NNN REIT LP, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001166 

v. 

 

CITY OF NOVI, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

Integrity Tax

Brian Thomas 

Representative for Petitioner 

6615 Brotherhood Way 

Fort Wayne, IN 46825 

(260) 637-8899 

bthomas@integritytax.com 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

Gopi P. Patel (P77727) 

Attorney for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive 

Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 

(248) 489-4100 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

gpatel@rsjalaw.com 

 

 

Respondent's Answer to Petition 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, City of Novi, by and through its Attorneys, ROSATI, 

SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Answer to Petitioner's Petition 

states as follows: 

1. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

2. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

3. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same.

Page 2

2 

 

4. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

5. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

6. 

As to the allegation contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

7. 

As to the allegation contained in Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

8. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

9. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

10. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

11. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs.

Page 3

3 

 

12. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Petition, Respondent 

denies the same as untrue. 

13. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, Respondent neither admits 

nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a 

belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Novi, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the 

relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable value 

of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed with 

prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

& AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Jeremy J. Romer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JEREMY J. ROMER (P77287) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(248) 489-4100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

 

Dated: July 30, 2026

Page 4

4 

 

Affirmative Defenses 

 

 

For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, 

Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 

 

1. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of 

action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

 

2. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of 

law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the 

Respondent. 

 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property 

failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the 

Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 

 

4. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash 

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

 

5. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation 

that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also 

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable 

value is improper. 

 

6. 

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after

Page 5

5

Page 6

6

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001166

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

City Of Novi (OAKLAND)

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

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

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jeremy

M.I.

J

Last Name

Romer

Firm Name (if any)

Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C.

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

27555 Executive Drive

Suite 250

City or Town

Farmington Hills

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48331

Telephone Number

2484894100

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

jromer@rsjalaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Jeremy J. Romer

/s/

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Nnn Reit Lp 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.28-001166 

Township of White Lake 

, 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

*To be filed after the Tribunal issues the Notice of Docket Number* 

Teresa Bearman, on behalf of Brian Thomas, 

states that on July 27, 2026 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Petition relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the following entities] 

1. Assessor (via certified mail): 

Assessor, White Lake Township, 7525 Highland Rd., White Lake, MI 48383 

2. 

City Clerk or Township Supervisor/Clerk (via certified mail): 

Clerk, White Lake Township, 7525 Highland Rd., White Lake, MI 48383 

3. 

County Equalization Director (via first class mail or personal service): 

Director, Oakland County Equalization, 250 Elizabeth Lake Rd., #1000W, Pontiac, MI 

48341 

4. 

County Clerk (via first class mail or personal service): 

Clerk, Oakland County, 1200 N Telegraph Bldg., #12E, Pontiac, Mi 48341 

5. 

Secretary of the local school board (via first class mail or personal service): 

Secretary, 

Waterford School District, 501 N Cass Lake Rd., Waterford, 

MI 48328 

6. 

State Treasurer (via first class mail}: 

Michigan Department of Treasury, State Treasurer 

430 W. Allegan 

Lansing, MI 48922 

—Jovesa Preeti — 

~TeResa Pee mae 

[Signature of person who is s&rving/mailing copy] 

[Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy] 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

- 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 

- 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, Mi 48908 

- Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, Mi 48906

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Nnn Reit Lp, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 26-001166 

Township Of White Lake, 

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 205.7354, even if the petition was served 

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

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

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

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

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

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case. 

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

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

will result in Respondent being placed in default. 

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

case. 

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

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

or the Tribunal's rules. 

By: Tribunal Clerk 

Entered: July 27, 2026 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

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

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

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

representatives. 

By: Tribunal Clerk 

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, M! 48906

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Nnn Reit Lp 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.#e~ Ae—80//(.( 

Township of White Lake 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: Y-12-23-202-006 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is _¥ real 

___ personal. 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- 

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? __ Yes ___No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

MTT

Page 6

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

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: 26-001166

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

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition

Attachment File Name: 26-001166_POS AND NOTICE OF DOCKET

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.

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 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________ 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

 

2. 

The property identified above is ___real ___personal. 

 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-

contiguous parcel.) 

 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as _________________________ 

 

7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made 

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

 

 

 

n/a

Township of White Lake

Nnn Reit Lp

Y-12-23-202-006

201 Commercial - Improved

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

8.

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):

9.

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):

10.

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The

property or properties’ address is:

11.

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable

local governmental unit): ________________________________________

12.

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is:

13.

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable):

________the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values

________the property or properties’ taxable value only

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes ___No 

________uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL ______ 

14.

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________

n/a

Oakland

9345 Highland Rd.

White Lake, MI 48386-2309

Township of White Lake

NNN REIT, LP

450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900

ORLANDO, FL 32801-3339

2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 3 of 4 

15.

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior

tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary):

16.

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

17.

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

18.

The values in dispute for the property identified above are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

19.

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary):

20.

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary):

n/a

2026

1661460

830730

830730

2026

1200000

600000

600000

2026

461460

230730

230730

We respectfully request that the taxable value and assessed value be corrected to $600000 with the true cash 

value $ 1200000. 

The subject property is a car wash building. Review of this type building as well as an appraisal supports a much 

lower valuation. We would respectfully request the assessment be adjusted to more appropriately represent the 

value of the subject property.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

 

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

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MTT DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: 

Organization 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Integrity Tax Consulting

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

6615 Brotherhood Way

City or Town

Fort Wayne

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46825-4226

Telephone Number

2606378899

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

tbeerman@integritytax.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Brian

M.I.

Last Name

Thomas

Firm Name (if any)

Integrity Tax Consulting

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

6615 Brotherhood Way

City or Town

Fort Wayne

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46815

Telephone Number

2602061843

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

tbeerman@integritytax.com

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

1

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

9345 Highland Rd.

White Lake

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48386-2309

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of White Lake (OAKLAND) 

County

Oakland

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.)

N/A

 

 

Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values

If “Other”, please explain:

 

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

Y-12-23-202-006

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Commercial (check one)

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

830730

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

830730

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

1200000

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

600000

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

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.

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

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/ Brian Thomas

Payment Information

Amount: 400

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26052086253824

Supporting Waiver Documents:

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

Nnn Reit Lp, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-001166

Township Of White Lake, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

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

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

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

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

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

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

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

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

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

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

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

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

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

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

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

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

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: July 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

 

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 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________ 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

 

2. 

The property identified above is ___real ___personal. 

 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-

contiguous parcel.) 

 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as _________________________ 

 

7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made 

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

 

 

 

n/a

Township of White Lake

Nnn Reit Lp

Y-12-23-202-006

201 Commercial - Improved

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

8.

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):

9.

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary):

10.

The property or properties at issue are located in _______________County. The

property or properties’ address is:

11.

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable

local governmental unit): ________________________________________

12.

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is:

13.

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable):

________the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values

________the property or properties’ taxable value only

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes ___No 

________uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment 

________the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation 

 under MCL ______ 

14.

The tax year(s) at issue are: _______________________________________

n/a

Oakland

9345 Highland Rd.

White Lake, MI 48386-2309

Township of White Lake

NNN REIT, LP

450 S ORANGE AVE STE 900

ORLANDO, FL 32801-3339

2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 3 of 4 

15.

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior

tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary):

16.

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

17.

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

18.

The values in dispute for the property identified above are:

Tax Year

True Cash Value

State Equalized Value

Taxable Value

19.

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary):

20.

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the

relief requested (attach additional page if necessary):

n/a

2026

1661460

830730

830730

2026

1200000

600000

600000

2026

461460

230730

230730

We respectfully request that the taxable value and assessed value be corrected to $600000 with the true cash 

value $ 1200000. 

The subject property is a car wash building. Review of this type building as well as an appraisal supports a much 

lower valuation. We would respectfully request the assessment be adjusted to more appropriately represent the 

value of the subject property.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 4 of 4 

 

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

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MTT DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: 

Organization 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Integrity Tax Consulting

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

6615 Brotherhood Way

City or Town

Fort Wayne

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46825-4226

Telephone Number

2606378899

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

tbeerman@integritytax.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Brian

M.I.

Last Name

Thomas

Firm Name (if any)

Integrity Tax Consulting

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

6615 Brotherhood Way

City or Town

Fort Wayne

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46815

Telephone Number

2602061843

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

tbeerman@integritytax.com

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

1

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

9345 Highland Rd.

White Lake

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48386-2309

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of White Lake (OAKLAND) 

County

Oakland

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.)

N/A

 

 

Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values

If “Other”, please explain:

 

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

Y-12-23-202-006

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Commercial (check one)

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

830730

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

830730

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

1200000

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

600000

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

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.

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

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/ Brian Thomas

Payment Information

Amount: 400

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26052086253824

Supporting Waiver Documents:

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.