Normandy Shoppes LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak, 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

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002422

City Of Royal Oak,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that the parties have filed a 

Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: July 21, 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

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002422

City Of Royal Oak,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that the parties have filed a 

Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: July 21, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002422 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JORDAN JONNA 

Representative for Petitioner 

4036 Telegraph Road, Suite 201 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 593-6200 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

 

Petitioner and Respondent hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this case with prejudice and 

without costs or attorney fees to either party. 

Signature of Petitioner’s 

Authorized Representative 

 

/s/ Jordan Jonna__________________ 

JORDAN JONNA 

 

 

Dated: July 21, 2026 

 

 

Signature of Respondent’s 

Authorized Representative 

 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan______________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

 

 

Dated: July 20, 2026

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 25-002422

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

Party Filing Document 

Joint

Files

Document Type: Motion to Withdraw Appeal

Attachment File Name: Stip to Dismiss

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

NOTICE OF NOVEMBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Normandy Shoppes LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Royal Oak,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002422

Please be advised that 25-002422 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing November 16, 2026. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protective Order will be published.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the Tribunal’s website. 

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

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002422

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

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

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

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

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

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

by July 20, 2026. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless 

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

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

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

Statements by July 20, 2026. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will 

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

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

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

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

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

July 20, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

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

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

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

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

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

November 16, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to 

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

by that date. “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 the completion date for this 

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one 

week before they are scheduled to appear. 

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: December 16, 2025

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002422

Page 3 of 3

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 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

NOTICE OF NOVEMBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND 

ORDER OF

Page 5

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002422 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JORDAN JONNA 

Representative for Petitioner 

4036 Telegraph Road, Suite 201 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 593-6200 

 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent City of Royal Oak, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 as to the parcel number, 

address, classification, County, and school district. 

 

2. 

Respondent admits that no Board of Review protest was made. 

 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. 

 

4. 

Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in 

Paragraph 4 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 2

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer 

Page 2 of 6 

 

5. 

Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in 

Paragraph 4 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

6. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal, but 

denies that those issues have merit and also denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

 

8. 

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 

2025 

$2,270,420 

$1,135,210 

$1,315,210 

 

9. 

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

 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$2,270,420 

$1,135,210 

 $1,135,210 

 

10. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax 

Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

202 

$0 

$0 

$0 

 

11. 

Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested in Paragraph 11, including all 

subparagraphs, for the reason that Petitioner’s amounts do not reflect the accurate valuations for 

this property. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed 

permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were 

correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principals, and the values 

and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Royal Oak requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, 

affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and 

award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.

Page 3

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer 

Page 3 of 6 

 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

/s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Dated: September 4, 2025 

 

 

 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent City of Royal Oak asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

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. 

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the 

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 

(1981). 

3. 

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See 

MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 

4. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error 

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

its agents. 

5. 

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject 

property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in 

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.

Page 4

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer 

Page 4 of 6 

 

6. 

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was 

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the 

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 

7. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen 

method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 

8. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by 

application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other 

properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 

9. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and 

state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

10. 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own 

intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise 

equitable tax burden. 

11. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

12. 

Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 

13. 

Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same 

may become known to it during the

Page 5

E

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-002422

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Royal Oak (OAKLAND)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax 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

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Laura M Hallahan

/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

RECEIVED 

JUL 2:8 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS CHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002422 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(Property Tax Petition) 

On the date below I sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Petition to: 

City Assessor 

City Clerk 

City of Royal Oak 

City of Royal Oak 

203 S. Troy Street 

203 S. Troy Street 

Royal Oak, MI 48067 

Royal Oak, MI 48067 

On the date below I sent by first class mail a copy of the Petition to: 

Equalization Director 

County Clerk 

Oakland County 

Oakland County 

250 Elizabeth Lake Rd, Ste 1000W 

1200 N. Telegraph Rd, Bldg 12E 

Pontiac, MI 48341 

Pontiac, MI 48341 

Secretary, Board of Education 

State Treasurer 

Royal Oak Schools 

Department of Treasury 

800 DeVillen 

430 W. Allegan Street 

Royal Oak, MI 48073 

Lansing, MI 48922 

1 declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.

Page 2

RECEN Ep 

TCHIGA 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

N Tax TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

Docket No. 

25- 002422 

City of Royal Oak, 

Parcel No. 

72-25-04-301-009 

Respondent. 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

yraainioants 

260196261 

05/30/25 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year): 

20if 

ft: $00.00 

10: 

NORMAMDY SHDRPES LLC 

Petitioner, by and through its representative Jordan Jonna, contends: 

I. 

4 The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: 

Parcel Number 

| 72-25-04-301-009 

Address 

4000 Crooks Road. 

Classification 

| 201 Comm-Imp 

| Use 

Retail 

County 

Oakland 

| Sch Dist | Royal Oak Public Schools 

2. 

BI N/A. 

If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: 

0 March, 

O July, 

[I December 

Board of Review. 

3. 

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 

4, 

Petitioner is 

a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject 

property. 

S. 

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 4036 Telegraph Rd., Suite 201, 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-2073. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

X 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values 

a 

the subject property’s taxable value only

Page 3

Petition 

8. 

The values' established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-25-04-301-009 

2,270,420 

1,135,210 

1,135,210 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values’ for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-25-04-301-009 

1,600,000 

800,000 

800,000 

10. 

The values’ in dispute are. 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-25-04-301-009 

670,420 

335,210 

335,210 

11. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to suppoit the relief requested: 

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(@ 

(b) 

© 

@ 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

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

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is 

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

and 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

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

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2025 values from those established 

by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable 

to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act.

Page 4

Petition 

1 

Jordan Jonna / 

/ 

4036 Telegraph Road, Suite 201 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

248 593-6200 

Dated: May 29, 2025 

FKuza@AFJonna.com 

Filing Fee: $400

Page 5

Jordan Jonna 

i 

i 

4036 Telegraph Rd., Suite 201 

METROPLEX MI 480 

US POS

FIR

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

B02813.18 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RTT 

ER BUTT TE 

BH 

UE 

UT 

06: 

22 JUL 2025 PM 4 L 

3500

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

JUN 02 2025 

MICH 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

NTAX TRiByp,, 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

Docket No. 

25- 

City of Royal Oak, 

Parcel No. 

72-25-04-301-009 

Respondent. 

/ 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

fjraninfo:qs0s 260198261 

06/30/25 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year)(hjif: 

2016 

Ant: $400.00 

ID: 

NORMANDY SHOFPES LLC 

Petitioner, by and through its representative Jordan Jonna, contends: 

1. 

The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: 

Parcel Number 

| 72-25-04-301-009 

Address 

4000 Crooks Road. 

Classification 

201 Comm-Imp 

[ Use 

Retail 

County 

Oakland 

[ Sch Dist | Royal Oak Public Schools 

2. 

XI N/A. 

If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: 

OO March, 

[OJ July, 

[J December 

Board of Review. 

3. 

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 

4. 

Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject 

property. 

5, 

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 4036 Telegraph Rd., Suite 201, 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-2073. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

Xx 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values

Page 2

Petition 

10. 

11. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2025 values from those established 

by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable 

The values' established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

72-25-04-301-009 

2,270,420 

1,135,210 

1,135,210 

Petitioner contends that the values’ for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-25-04-301-009 

1,600,000 

800,000 

800,000 

The values’ in dispute are. 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

72-25-04-301-009 

670,420 

335,210 

335,210 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

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

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is 

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

and 

(d) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

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

to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act.

Page 3

Petition 

1 

Jordan Jonna / 

/ 

4036 Telegraph Ro4d, Suite 201 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

248 593-6200 

Dated: May 29, 2025 

FKuza@AFJonna.com 

Filing Fee: $400

Page 4

ORIGIN ID:DETA (248) 593-6200 SHIP hells 29MAY25

AF JONNA DEVELOPMENT ACTWGT: 0.50 LB

CAD: 102398807 INET4535

4036 TELEGRAPH ROAD

SUITE 201

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302

BILL SENDER

UNITED STATES US

70 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

STATE OF MICHIGAN

611 W. OTTAWA STREET

58GJ4/EA36/59F2

<

LANSING MI 48933

i ) 335-9760 REF:

Il WTI TNT I TT] il 1 I nmin

EEE =

Bopress

1252025040801

FRI - 30 MAY 5:00p

Tor] 8816 2923 3400

48933

STANDARD OVERNIGHT

68 LANA uz-vs GRR

TEEN

Align bottom of peel-and-stick airbill or pouch here.

J

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

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002422

City Of Royal Oak, 

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: June 13, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

JUN 02 2025 

MICH 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

NTAX TRiByp,, 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

Normandy Shoppes LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

Docket No. 

25- 

City of Royal Oak, 

Parcel No. 

72-25-04-301-009 

Respondent. 

/ 

PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

fjraninfo:qs0s 260198261 

06/30/25 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year)(hjif: 

2016 

Ant: $400.00 

ID: 

NORMANDY SHOFPES LLC 

Petitioner, by and through its representative Jordan Jonna, contends: 

1. 

The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: 

Parcel Number 

| 72-25-04-301-009 

Address 

4000 Crooks Road. 

Classification 

201 Comm-Imp 

[ Use 

Retail 

County 

Oakland 

[ Sch Dist | Royal Oak Public Schools 

2. 

XI N/A. 

If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: 

OO March, 

[OJ July, 

[J December 

Board of Review. 

3. 

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 

4. 

Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject 

property. 

5, 

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 4036 Telegraph Rd., Suite 201, 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-2073. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

Xx 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values

Page 2

Petition 

10. 

11. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2025 values from those established 

by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable 

The values' established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

72-25-04-301-009 

2,270,420 

1,135,210 

1,135,210 

Petitioner contends that the values’ for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-25-04-301-009 

1,600,000 

800,000 

800,000 

The values’ in dispute are. 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

72-25-04-301-009 

670,420 

335,210 

335,210 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2025 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected 

thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons 

that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted 

by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true 

cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

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

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is 

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

and 

(d) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

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

to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act.

Page 3

Petition 

1 

Jordan Jonna / 

/ 

4036 Telegraph Ro4d, Suite 201 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

248 593-6200 

Dated: May 29, 2025 

FKuza@AFJonna.com 

Filing Fee: $400

Page 4

ORIGIN ID:DETA (248) 593-6200 SHIP hells 29MAY25

AF JONNA DEVELOPMENT ACTWGT: 0.50 LB

CAD: 102398807 INET4535

4036 TELEGRAPH ROAD

SUITE 201

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48302

BILL SENDER

UNITED STATES US

70 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

STATE OF MICHIGAN

611 W. OTTAWA STREET

58GJ4/EA36/59F2

<

LANSING MI 48933

i ) 335-9760 REF:

Il WTI TNT I TT] il 1 I nmin

EEE =

Bopress

1252025040801

FRI - 30 MAY 5:00p

Tor] 8816 2923 3400

48933

STANDARD OVERNIGHT

68 LANA uz-vs GRR

TEEN

Align bottom of peel-and-stick airbill or pouch here.

J

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.