Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Clinton Respondent

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENTOF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

PARTRIDGE CREEK HOLDING 

COMPANY LLC, 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CLINTON TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001619 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JEROME P. PESICK (P29039) 

JASON C. LONG (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

PLUNKETT, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

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, Clinton Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

The Parties 

1. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

 

The Subject Property

Page 2

2

3. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

4. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4. 

 

5. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 

 

The 2026 Assessment 

 

6. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

 

8. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s contention of value but denies that it reflects 

the property’s fair market value as of December 31, 2025. In further answer, the assessed, state 

equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of 

true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application 

of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory 

and constitutional. 

 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute in the subject 

property’s valuation but denies Petitioner’s contentions of value have merit and further denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values 

do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by 

law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and 

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

 

10. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner but denies that those 

issues have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to relief. Respondent admits there is no issue 

relative to an addition or loss but denies Petitioner has a right to raise any additional claims at a 

later date. 

 

11. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 11, including subparagraphs (a)-

(d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or 

taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value 

permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper 

principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and 

constitutional. 

 

12. 

Respondent admits the subject property’s assessment is uniform but denies it 

overestimated the subject property’s value. 

 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

 

13. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons set forth above.

Page 3

3

 

 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Clinton Township, 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. 

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: October 3, 2026 

 

 

 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, Clinton Township, 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.

Page 4

4

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. 

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.

Page 5

5

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. 26-001619

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

Township Of Clinton (MACOMB)

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

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Halahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates PC

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road

Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48302-2073

Telephone Number

2487313090

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

lhallahan@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

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC, 

Docket No. 26-001619 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No. 16-11-05-100-074 

v. 

Charter Township of Clinton, 

Respondent. 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Richard E Rassel, III (P57540) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Proof of Service of Petition and Notice of Docket Number

Page 2

Proof of Service of Petition and Notice of Docket Number 

Monica Athanas states that she personally served copies of the Entire Tribunal 

Property Tax Petition, Notice of Docket Number, and this Proof of Service, on the 

persons listed below, by the means identified, by placing those documents in a duly 

stamped, addressed envelopes and placing the envelopes in the United States mail 

on September 3, 2026. 

PERSONS SERVED: 

Certified Mail 

First Class Mail 

Clerk 

Clerk 

Secretary of School Board 

Charter Township of Clinton 

Macomb County 

Chippewa Valley School 

40700 Romeo Plank Rd 

120 N Main St. 

District 

Clinton Twp., MI 48038 

Mt.Clemens, MI 48043 

19120 Cass Avenue 

Clinton Twp, MI 48038 

Assessor 

Director of Equalization 

~~ State Treasurer 

Charter Township of Clinton 

Macomb County 

Michigan Dep't of Treasury 

40700 Romeo Plank Rd 

1 S Main St 6th floor 

Austin Building 

Clinton Twp., MI 48038 

Mt Clemens, MI 48043 

430 W. Allegan 

Lansing, MI 

48922 

c 

Monica Athanas ~~

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: 26-001619

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: POS - Petition - PCHC - Clinton Twp

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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 16-11-05-100-074 

 

v. 

 

Charter Township of Clinton, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Richard E Rassel, III (P57540) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

 

Petitioner Partridge Creek Holding Company, LLC, by and through its 

attorneys, Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire 

Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Partridge Creek Holding Company, LLC is a Michigan 

limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Michigan at 

3005 University Drive, Suite 100, Auburn Hills, MI 48326. 

2. 

Respondent Charter Township of Clinton is a Michigan township with

Page 2

its principal offices located at 40700 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 16-11-05-100-074 

which is vacant land with no common street address but is located on Dove Drive (the 

“Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Macomb County and is within the 

Chippewa Valley School District. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes 

for the Subject Property. 

The 2026 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as 

commercial real property. 

7. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s 

assessment for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 1,416,000 

 708,000 

 708,000 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for 

the 2026 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 1,000,000 

 500,000 

 500,000 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 416,000 

 208,000 

 208,000

Page 3

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation 

for assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any 

issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 

211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues 

involving losses should information supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan 

Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles 

and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) 

otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment 

is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent 

overestimating the Subject Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal 

enter judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment to be consistent with 

the values set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other 

relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jerome P. Pesick 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Dated: May 27, 2026 

 

 

Attorneys for 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

Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC

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

3005 University Drive, Suite 100, , MI

City or Town

Auburn Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48326

Telephone Number

2486420333

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

jpesick@wwrplaw.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jerome

M.I.

P

Last Name

Pesick

Firm Name (if any)

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC

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

380 N. Old Woodward, Ste 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

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

jpesick@wwrplaw.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]

No street address

Clinton Township

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48038

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Clinton (MACOMB) 

County

Macomb

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:

16-11-05-100-074

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:

708000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

708000

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

1000000

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

500000

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

500000

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/ Jerome P. Pesick

Payment Information

Amount: 400

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26052787105422

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

Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-001619

Township Of Clinton, 

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: August 20, 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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 16-11-05-100-074 

 

v. 

 

Charter Township of Clinton, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Richard E Rassel, III (P57540) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

 

Petitioner Partridge Creek Holding Company, LLC, by and through its 

attorneys, Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire 

Tribunal Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Partridge Creek Holding Company, LLC is a Michigan 

limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Michigan at 

3005 University Drive, Suite 100, Auburn Hills, MI 48326. 

2. 

Respondent Charter Township of Clinton is a Michigan township with

Page 2

its principal offices located at 40700 Romeo Plank Road, Clinton Township, MI 48038. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 16-11-05-100-074 

which is vacant land with no common street address but is located on Dove Drive (the 

“Subject Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Macomb County and is within the 

Chippewa Valley School District. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes 

for the Subject Property. 

The 2026 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as 

commercial real property. 

7. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s 

assessment for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 1,416,000 

 708,000 

 708,000 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for 

the 2026 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 1,000,000 

 500,000 

 500,000 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 416,000 

 208,000 

 208,000

Page 3

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation 

for assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any 

issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 

211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues 

involving losses should information supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan 

Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles 

and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) 

otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment 

is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent 

overestimating the Subject Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal 

enter judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment to be consistent with 

the values set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other 

relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jerome P. Pesick 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Dated: May 27, 2026 

 

 

Attorneys for 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

Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC

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

3005 University Drive, Suite 100, , MI

City or Town

Auburn Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48326

Telephone Number

2486420333

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

jpesick@wwrplaw.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jerome

M.I.

P

Last Name

Pesick

Firm Name (if any)

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC

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

380 N. Old Woodward, Ste 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

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

jpesick@wwrplaw.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]

No street address

Clinton Township

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48038

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Clinton (MACOMB) 

County

Macomb

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:

16-11-05-100-074

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:

708000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

708000

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

1000000

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

500000

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

500000

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/ Jerome P. Pesick

Payment Information

Amount: 400

Success: True

Message: ""

Waiver Code:

Transaction Number: 26052787105422

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.