Richard C Cawthray, Petitioner V Township Of Fenton, Respondent

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 27 2025 

ie 

“ICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

TANS 

DIRECTOR 

EERE EA Rn Sore 

: 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

Township of Fenton 

, 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. 

| wish this Tribunal to reconsider Special Assessment method used by Fenton Township. 

2. 

Good cause exists to grant reconsideration because: 

My original filing was rejected because it was received beyond the 30 day window allowed. 

| screwed up and take full 

responsibility. 

I'am humbly requesting an appeal be granted so the underlying issue of Application of Special 

Assessments in Fenton Township can be resolved and made compliant with Current Michigan Statute. Thank you for 

your time and attention to this matter. 

Attached please find the background information for your review and understanding of the basis of my dispute. 

/ 

/ 

3. 

| ask this Tribunal to grant my request for reconsideration. 

a heréy—" 

freuen 

Cawnerny 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

| certify that on this date 

| served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

Vw 20, 2025 

——— 

’ 

) 

UJ 

Date 

(sign here

Page 2

Basis for Reconsideration of Special Assessment 

eo 

Legal Foundation for Special Assessments 

o 

Special Assessments are utilized by municipalities to finance improvements 

for specific projects that benefit property owners within a designated Special 

Assessment District (SAD). Importantly, revenue from SADs cannot be used 

for general government spending. 

o 

According 

to Michigan law, decisions regarding special assessments are 

generally presumed valid if they meet two criteria: (1) the improvement 

must 

benefit the assessed property—not simply the community 

at large; and (2) 

the assessment amount must reasonably correspond to the benefit received. 

The justification for special assessments rests on the expectation that 

property values within the district will rise due to these improvements, 

making the benefits conferred pivotal to their validity. 

eo 

Benefit and Proportionality of Assessment 

o 

Anincrease in market value is considered a benefit resulting from special 

assessments. The Michigan Supreme Court has clarified that courts should 

not require strict dollar-for-dollar correspondence between the assessment 

amount and property benefit. An assessment will only be invalidated if a 

substantial or unreasonable disproportion exists between the amount levied 

and the benefit gained from the improvement. 

e 

|ssue of Disproportional Assessment on Non-Residential Property 

o 

The current challenge concerns the disproportionate assessments placed on 

non-residential garage properties within Haddon Street SAD on Lake Fenton, 

established to subsidize the replacement of Haddon Street due to severe 

disrepair. 

eo 

Assessment Method Concerns 

o 

Atthe November 2022 board meeting, the FULL SHARE/HALF SHARE 

assessment method was introduced. This method appears arbitrary and 

does not align with the legal principles outlined in Criteria 

1 & 2 above. When 

questioned, the board did not provide an explanation for its choice. 

o 

Lake Fenton residential lots range from 40’ to over 100 feet in width. Owners 

of narrow forty-foot lots typically have an additional garage parcel across the

Page 3

annual property tax for my garage is about $900, and for my home it is nearly 

$10,000. The $5,207 garage assessment is excessive, as it does not enhance 

the garage’s value. It’s still just a garage. Both my home and garage share the 

same forty feet of road frontage, yet 

| pay 50% more for the same 40’ simply 

because of the additional garage parcel. The $5,207 garage assessment is 

almost six times the annual property tax. It's still a garage on a very small 

unbuildable lot that has essentially no market value. This creates a notable 

disparity, especially for those with'the smallest lots compared to owners of 

larger properties whose value is two to three times the value of my property. 

eo 

Request for Alternative Assessment Method 

o 

Atthe April 1, 2025, road repair meeting, 

| presented copies of newspaper 

articles to the board, documenting how other municipalities assess property 

owners for road repair. They all used the same assessment method. Each 

municipality divided the total project cost equally among all residents living 

within the SAD. 

o 

lIrequest the Michigan Tax Tribunal strike down Fenton Township Half 

Share/Full Share Assessment Policy as it does not comply with Criteria 1 

& 2 stated above. 

= 

The SAD half share neither: (1) confers any benefit on the 

assessed garage property (2) is not reasonably proportionate to 

the benefit derived from the improvement as it does not add any 

additional retail value to the garage property. 

= 

Include all residents with a Haddon Street address on the Haddon 

Street Assessment Roll.

Page 4

RICK CAWTHRAY 

METROPLEX MI 480 

12127 W. Pierson Rd. 

| Flushing, ME45:3 

21 AUG 2025 PM17L 

Jean] Tk Tel Bum 

Me JW. OTTAWA = 

J ANSING, PE. 2957 

AEEEI- OTHE 

fii 

pH JR 

ded gi pee Be

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 

Richard C Cawthray, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

 

Fenton Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On August 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the 

Order of Dismissal entered in this case on August 13, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner 

states that the original filing was rejected because it was received after the 30-day 

window allowed. Petitioner acknowledged his mistake but is “humbly requesting an 

appeal be granted so the underlying issue of [a]pplication of [s]pecial [a]ssessments in 

Fenton Township can be resolved and made compliant with [c]urrent Michigan 

[s]tatute.” 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that it has no 

authority over Petitioner’s appeal. The Order of Dismissal, issued August 13, 2025, 

provided that the above-referenced appeal was being dismissed because “[t]he petition 

[w]as not filed within 30 days after the confirmation of the special assessment roll. See 

MCL 211.746.” The pleadings and accompanying documentation indicate that 

Petitioner is appealing Respondent’s road maintenance special assessment. However, 

Petitioner’s appeal is untimely pursuant to MCL 41.726, which states that “after the 

confirmation of the special assessment roll, all assessments on that assessment roll 

shall be final and conclusive unless an action contesting an assessment is filed in a 

court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days after the date of confirmation.”1 As such, 

and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a 

statutory requirement or filing deadline, it has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief 

requested.2 

 

Given the above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the 

Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted 

in a different disposition if the error was corrected.3 Therefore, 

 

 

1 Id. 

2 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 

3 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

Page 2 of 2 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be 

filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: September 16, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

smm 

 

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

Richard C Cawthray, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that Respondent has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

Entered: September 3, 2025

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Richard C Cawthray, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that Respondent has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

Entered: September 3, 2025

By: Tribunal Clerk

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Richard C Cawthray, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that Respondent has filed a response to the Motion for Reconsideration 

filed in this case. TTR 261 precludes a response to a motion for reconsideration “unless 

otherwise provided by the tribunal;” and leave to file a response has not been 

requested. As such, no action shall be taken on the unauthorized pleading and a copy 

of the filed reply will not be retained by the Tribunal. 

Entered: September 3, 2025

By: Tribunal Clerk

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

SEP 03 2025 

F. JACK BELZER, P.C. 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW 

3153 W. HILL ROAD 

‘ 

FLINT, MICHIGAN 48507 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

F. JACK BELZER 

TELEPHONE 

lawyeriack@notmail.com 

(810) 234-3300 

FAX 

(810) 234-3399 

August 26, 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

P.O. BOX 30232 

LANSING, MI 48909 

RE: 

CAWTHRAY, Richard C. vs. TOWNSHIP OF FENTON 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002737 

Dear Tribunal Court: 

Enclosed herewith, please find 

for filing the following, 

relative 

to the above- 

referenced matter: 

* 

Response to Motion for Reconsideration. 

We would request that the enclosed copy of same be returned as true, stamped or 

whatever acknowledgment of receipt you provide upon filing of documents and have 

provided a self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your 

convenience. 

7

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

RICHARD C. & RUTH J. CAWTHRAY, 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002737 

Petitioner(s), 

vs. 

TOWNSHIP OF FENTON 

Respondent(s). 

F. Jack Belzer (P23306) 

F. JACK BELZER, P.C. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

3153 W. Hill Road 

Flint, MI 48507 

(810) 234-3300 

lawyerjack@hotmail.com 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

NOW COMES, attorney F. Jack Belzer, on behalf of the Charter Township of 

Fenton, and would advise this Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

That Petitioner(s) request for reconsideration is not based upon any legal 

theory nor any justifiable basis for reconsideration. 

2. 

That Petitioner(s) is not the owner(s) of record and has no interest in the 

subject property, nor any property within the Special Assessment District and 

is not a 

proper party to appeal this matter. 

3. 

That the basis for the assessment is properly filed upon law and fair principles 

and Petitioner(s) has no proper basis to challenge the Special Assessment and the District.

Page 3

RECEIVED 

SEP 0:3 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

RICHARD C. & RUTH J. CAWTHRAY, 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002737 

Petitioner(s), 

VS. 

TOWNSHIP OF FENTON 

Respondent(s). 

F. Jack Belzer (P23306) 

F. JACK BELZER, P.C. 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

3153 W. Hill Road 

Flint, MI 48507 

(810) 234-3300 

lawyerjack@hotmail.com 

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

NOW COMES, attorney F. Jack Belzer, on behalf of the Charter Township of 

Fenton, and would advise this Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

That Petitioner(s) request for reconsideration is not based upon any legal 

theory nor any justifiable basis for reconsideration. 

2. 

That Petitioner(s) is not the owner(s) of record and has no interest in the 

subject property, nor any property within the Special Assessment District and is not a 

proper party to appeal this matter. 

3. 

That the basis for the assessment is properly filed upon law and fair principles 

and Petitioner(s) has no proper basis to challenge the Special Assessment and the District.

Page 4

JACK. BELZ ER, P.C. 

METROPLEX MI 480 

Attorney & Counsellor at Law 

3153 v. HILL ROAD 

FLINT. MI #8507 » 

28 AUG 2025 PM i4L 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

P.0. BOX 30232 

LANSING, MI 48909 

TLE 

fas 

a ra 

Te 

a 

FERRY UT CLE 

o0 VERY 

LJ RY EJ 

ERT FRET)

Page 5

F. JACK BELZER, P.C. 

Attorney & Counsellor at Law 

3153 W. HILL ROAD 

FLINT, MI 48507 

F. JACK BELZER 

3153 W HILL ROAD 

CLINT, MI 48505

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 

AUG 27 2025 

ie 

“ICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

TANS 

DIRECTOR 

EERE EA Rn Sore 

: 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737 

Township of Fenton 

, 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. 

| wish this Tribunal to reconsider Special Assessment method used by Fenton Township. 

2. 

Good cause exists to grant reconsideration because: 

My original filing was rejected because it was received beyond the 30 day window allowed. 

| screwed up and take full 

responsibility. 

I'am humbly requesting an appeal be granted so the underlying issue of Application of Special 

Assessments in Fenton Township can be resolved and made compliant with Current Michigan Statute. Thank you for 

your time and attention to this matter. 

Attached please find the background information for your review and understanding of the basis of my dispute. 

/ 

/ 

3. 

| ask this Tribunal to grant my request for reconsideration. 

a heréy—" 

freuen 

Cawnerny 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

| certify that on this date 

| served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

Vw 20, 2025 

——— 

’ 

) 

UJ 

Date 

(sign here

Page 2

Basis for Reconsideration of Special Assessment 

eo 

Legal Foundation for Special Assessments 

o 

Special Assessments are utilized by municipalities to finance improvements 

for specific projects that benefit property owners within a designated Special 

Assessment District (SAD). Importantly, revenue from SADs cannot be used 

for general government spending. 

o 

According 

to Michigan law, decisions regarding special assessments are 

generally presumed valid if they meet two criteria: (1) the improvement 

must 

benefit the assessed property—not simply the community 

at large; and (2) 

the assessment amount must reasonably correspond to the benefit received. 

The justification for special assessments rests on the expectation that 

property values within the district will rise due to these improvements, 

making the benefits conferred pivotal to their validity. 

eo 

Benefit and Proportionality of Assessment 

o 

Anincrease in market value is considered a benefit resulting from special 

assessments. The Michigan Supreme Court has clarified that courts should 

not require strict dollar-for-dollar correspondence between the assessment 

amount and property benefit. An assessment will only be invalidated if a 

substantial or unreasonable disproportion exists between the amount levied 

and the benefit gained from the improvement. 

e 

|ssue of Disproportional Assessment on Non-Residential Property 

o 

The current challenge concerns the disproportionate assessments placed on 

non-residential garage properties within Haddon Street SAD on Lake Fenton, 

established to subsidize the replacement of Haddon Street due to severe 

disrepair. 

eo 

Assessment Method Concerns 

o 

Atthe November 2022 board meeting, the FULL SHARE/HALF SHARE 

assessment method was introduced. This method appears arbitrary and 

does not align with the legal principles outlined in Criteria 

1 & 2 above. When 

questioned, the board did not provide an explanation for its choice. 

o 

Lake Fenton residential lots range from 40’ to over 100 feet in width. Owners 

of narrow forty-foot lots typically have an additional garage parcel across the

Page 3

annual property tax for my garage is about $900, and for my home it is nearly 

$10,000. The $5,207 garage assessment is excessive, as it does not enhance 

the garage’s value. It’s still just a garage. Both my home and garage share the 

same forty feet of road frontage, yet 

| pay 50% more for the same 40’ simply 

because of the additional garage parcel. The $5,207 garage assessment is 

almost six times the annual property tax. It's still a garage on a very small 

unbuildable lot that has essentially no market value. This creates a notable 

disparity, especially for those with'the smallest lots compared to owners of 

larger properties whose value is two to three times the value of my property. 

eo 

Request for Alternative Assessment Method 

o 

Atthe April 1, 2025, road repair meeting, 

| presented copies of newspaper 

articles to the board, documenting how other municipalities assess property 

owners for road repair. They all used the same assessment method. Each 

municipality divided the total project cost equally among all residents living 

within the SAD. 

o 

lIrequest the Michigan Tax Tribunal strike down Fenton Township Half 

Share/Full Share Assessment Policy as it does not comply with Criteria 1 

& 2 stated above. 

= 

The SAD half share neither: (1) confers any benefit on the 

assessed garage property (2) is not reasonably proportionate to 

the benefit derived from the improvement as it does not add any 

additional retail value to the garage property. 

= 

Include all residents with a Haddon Street address on the Haddon 

Street Assessment Roll.

Page 4

RICK CAWTHRAY 

METROPLEX MI 480 

12127 W. Pierson Rd. 

| Flushing, ME45:3 

21 AUG 2025 PM17L 

Jean] Tk Tel Bum 

Me JW. OTTAWA = 

J ANSING, PE. 2957 

AEEEI- OTHE 

fii 

pH JR 

ded gi pee Be

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

Richard C Cawthray, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

The petition as not filed within 30 days after the confirmation of the special assessment 

roll. See MCL 211.746. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Page 2 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 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

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Richard C Cawthray, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

The petition as not filed within 30 days after the confirmation of the special assessment 

roll. See MCL 211.746. 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Page 4 of 6

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee.

Page 5

STATE

Page 6

MT

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 238 2025 

ED 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ~~ MARLON I BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002737 

Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 281, you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., resolution 

confirming the special assessment rol} with this answer. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in default, 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

Unit of Government: 

Charter Township of Fenton 

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

First Name 

Mi 

Last Name 

F Jack 

Belzer 

Firm Name (if any) 

F Jack Belzer P C 

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

3153 W Hill Road 

City or Town 

State 

2iP Code 

Flint 

MI 

48507 

Telephone Number 8 1 0-2343300 

Email Address {do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

LAWYERJACK@HOTMAIL.COM 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If no, list ail parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. Attach a 

separate sheet if necessary. 

0 Yes 

[mi] No 

Not Applicable 

Parcet Identification Number(s): 

06-14-576-022 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal J (check one) 

Agricultura!] 

Commercial] 

Industriat [1 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover [J 

Developmental [J 

Utitity 

[J (check one) 

Taxing Authority (City or Township) 

County 

Charter Township of Fenton 

Genesee

Page 2

“rant 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Untimely filing deprives the Tribunal of Jurisdiction. Township Board confirmed the rofl 

on April 15, 2025. Copy of 

resolution attached. Appeal was filed and received by the Tribunal on June 6, 2025. 

The Appeal was filed past the 30 day requirement of Tribunal rules. 

Not all parcels have residences on them. Parcels with residences were assessed full 

amount of assessment. ($10,414.00). Parcels without residence were assessed at half 

of that amount ($5207.00). 

Lot at issue was assessed at lower amount, 

The Petitioner is not the owner of record. See attached deed. Petitioner was the one who 

“protested” the assessment but is not the owner and was designed as agent or 

representative at the meeting or in the pleadings. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did Petitioner protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roli? [0] Yes 

No 

What was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

April 15 2025 

How many years Is the special assessment being levied? 

What is the total amount of the special assessment being levied 

1 

{per parcel)? 

5 

10414/ 5207 

What is the basls for the special assessment? Identify the applicable statutory provision. 

Street improvement pursuant to Public Act 188 of 1954 MCL 41.723 

Signatur 

maquiea 

fT 

== 

Respondant 4r Attar 

wutitor, 

Reprisentativa’s Signature; 

Jay 

IN 

a 

FJack Belzer

Page 3

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF FENTON, GENESEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN 

MINUTES FOR REGULAR TOWNSHIP BOARD MEETING 

APRIL 15, 2025 

WHEREAS, such public hearing was preceded by proper notice in the Tri-County 

Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the Township, and by first class mail notice 

to each property owner of record within said district and upon said assessment roll, and 

WHEREAS, comments were received from those present at such public hearing 

concerning said special assessment roll and opportunity to all present to be heard in the 

matter, and 

WHEREAS, a record of those present to protest, and of written protests submitted, 

if any, at or before the public hearing was made a part of the minutes of the hearing, and 

WHEREAS, revised cost information indicated the reasonableness of the following 

revisions to said special assessment roll: 

The total assessment amount is revised to $515,493.00. The revised assessment 

per “share” is $10,414.00. 

and 

WHEREAS, 

the 

township 

board has 

duly inspected 

the proposed 

special 

assessment roll and considered all comments and proposed amendments thereto and has 

found the proposed special assessment roll, as revised, to be correct, just and reasonable; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 

1. 

The special assessment roll submitted by the supervisor and assessing officer of the 

township shall hereafter be designated as Fenton Township Special Assessment Roll 

No. 2025-03, and shall hereby be confirmed as the assessment roll for the Haddon 

Street Improvement Special Assessment District. 

2. 

The assessments in said Fenton Township Special Assessment Roll No. 2025-03 shall 

be divided into 

fifteen 

(15) equal annual installments 

of principal with 

the 

first 

installment to be due on or before December 1, 2025 and the following installments to 

be due on or before the 15 day of the same month of each and every year thereafter. 

All unpaid installments prior to their transfer to the tax roll as provided by Michigan 

Public Act 188 of 1954, as amended, shall bear interest payable annually on each 

installment due date at the annual rate equal to 1% above the average rate of interest 

borne by bonds to be sold by the Township in anticipation of the collection of the 

special

Page 4

CHARTER

Page 5

my

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

Richard C Cawthray,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this 

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference 

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

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

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

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

NOTE: The parties may not request an informal settlement conference to discuss an 

appeal of a principal residence exemption that was denied by either the Michigan 

Department of Treasury or a County. Also, state taxes levied by the Michigan 

Department of Treasury, such as income taxes, are not subject to the informal 

settlement conference process.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Page 2 of 6

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

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between 

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

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

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

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

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

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: August 12, 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

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Richard C Cawthray,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

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

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

RECEIVED 

JUN 05 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.1. 

Last Name/Company Name 

Richard 

C. 

Cawthray 

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

12127 West Pierson Road 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Flushing 

MI 

48433 

Telephone Number 810-938-6548 

rcawthray@comcast.net 

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

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

First Name 

M.L 

Last Name 

None 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

State 

ZIP Code 

City or Town 

Telephone Number 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels are you 

Yes* 

No* 

[U4 NA 

appealing? 

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

1 

**If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) 

[If multiple, list first property's address] 

13357 Haddon St., Fenton, MI 48430 

Parcel Identification Number(s): 

Prop #: 06-14-576-022

Page 2

Section 4: Explanation for Reason for the Appeal 

am filing an appeal on the Road Repair Assessment for the above listed parcel located in Fenton 

Township. "Michigan law generally presumes that decisions regarding special assessments are 

valid. To be determined valid, special assessments must meet two legal requirements: (1) the 

improvement subject to the special assessment must confer a benefit on the assed property and 

not just the community as a whole and (2) the amount of special assessment must be reasonably 

proportionate to the benefit derived from the improvement". The very idea special assessments are 

justified is premised on values of property in specified assessment districts will be enhanced by the 

improvements made. It follows that the validity of these assessments hinges on the benefits 

conferred. Accordingly, finding an increased market value as a result of the improvements would 

constitute as a benefit conferred from the special assessments. Michigan Supreme Court 

articulated when analyzing the validity of a special assessment, courts are "not to determine 

whether there is a "rigid dollar-for-dollar balance between the amount of the special assessment 

and the amount of benefit. Rather, a special assessment will be declared invalid only when the 

party challenging the assessment demonstrates that ‘there is a substantial or unreasonable 

disproportionality between the amount assessed and the value which accrues tothe land as a 

result of the improvements". 

At the board meeting held November 2022 the FULL SHARE/HALF SHARE method of assessment 

was introduced 

This method is completely arbitrary and gives no regard to the law stated above. 

When the board was asked how they determined this method no explanation was given. Homes on 

Lake Fenton have lots varying from 40’ to 100'+. Forty-foot lots are obviously too narrow for a two 

garage and therefore most small lot owners have a small parcel across the street their garage. This 

parcel has a Tax ID number as indicated above. Each resident on Haddon Street was assessed a 

FULL SHARE of the cost of repairs. All residents with a garage parcel were assessed an additional 

HALF SHARE. People with the smallest homes/lots will pay 50% additional assessment simply 

because they have tiny lots. The full share = $10,414.00. The half share = $5,207. My annual 

property tax on my garage = $907. Annual property tax on my home = $9,037. The garage 

assessment = $5,207 is totally disproportionate as there is little to no enhancement to the value to 

the property. The garage fronts the same 40’ as my home. It will not add any additional value to this 

parcel. 

lam paying 50% more for the same forty feet of road frontage that my home and garage 

share. 

At the April 1, 2025 road repair meeting 

| presented each member of the board copies of newspaper

Page 3

ep, 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

See Attached Sheet for: 

Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

Yes 

OJ No 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

November 18,2022; April 1, 2025 

If No, explain: 

Fee Information: 

A fee of $100.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal. 

Signature required 

TT 

Petitioner ori 

ntative’s Signature: 

5 

— 

aca 

= 

=

Page 4

Rick Cawthray 

METROPLEX MI, 98D; oN" 

aml 

12127 W Pierson Rd 

Flushing MI 48433-9716 

2 JUN 2025 

PM $61 

| Aa Tp TRIBUNAL 

Pp, Box 56232 

LON SEG 

Mz 

A807 

SESE 

FT HEE 

LYE 

BURT 

SR 

CT HT 

FUR 

BU 

F

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Richard C Cawthray,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: July 17, 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

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

Richard C Cawthray,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002737

Township Of Fenton,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: July 17, 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

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

RECEIVED 

JUN 05 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.1. 

Last Name/Company Name 

Richard 

C. 

Cawthray 

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

12127 West Pierson Road 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Flushing 

MI 

48433 

Telephone Number 810-938-6548 

rcawthray@comcast.net 

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

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

First Name 

M.L 

Last Name 

None 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

State 

ZIP Code 

City or Town 

Telephone Number 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels are you 

Yes* 

No* 

[U4 NA 

appealing? 

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

1 

**If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) 

[If multiple, list first property's address] 

13357 Haddon St., Fenton, MI 48430 

Parcel Identification Number(s): 

Prop #: 06-14-576-022

Page 2

Section 4: Explanation for Reason for the Appeal 

am filing an appeal on the Road Repair Assessment for the above listed parcel located in Fenton 

Township. "Michigan law generally presumes that decisions regarding special assessments are 

valid. To be determined valid, special assessments must meet two legal requirements: (1) the 

improvement subject to the special assessment must confer a benefit on the assed property and 

not just the community as a whole and (2) the amount of special assessment must be reasonably 

proportionate to the benefit derived from the improvement". The very idea special assessments are 

justified is premised on values of property in specified assessment districts will be enhanced by the 

improvements made. It follows that the validity of these assessments hinges on the benefits 

conferred. Accordingly, finding an increased market value as a result of the improvements would 

constitute as a benefit conferred from the special assessments. Michigan Supreme Court 

articulated when analyzing the validity of a special assessment, courts are "not to determine 

whether there is a "rigid dollar-for-dollar balance between the amount of the special assessment 

and the amount of benefit. Rather, a special assessment will be declared invalid only when the 

party challenging the assessment demonstrates that ‘there is a substantial or unreasonable 

disproportionality between the amount assessed and the value which accrues tothe land as a 

result of the improvements". 

At the board meeting held November 2022 the FULL SHARE/HALF SHARE method of assessment 

was introduced 

This method is completely arbitrary and gives no regard to the law stated above. 

When the board was asked how they determined this method no explanation was given. Homes on 

Lake Fenton have lots varying from 40’ to 100'+. Forty-foot lots are obviously too narrow for a two 

garage and therefore most small lot owners have a small parcel across the street their garage. This 

parcel has a Tax ID number as indicated above. Each resident on Haddon Street was assessed a 

FULL SHARE of the cost of repairs. All residents with a garage parcel were assessed an additional 

HALF SHARE. People with the smallest homes/lots will pay 50% additional assessment simply 

because they have tiny lots. The full share = $10,414.00. The half share = $5,207. My annual 

property tax on my garage = $907. Annual property tax on my home = $9,037. The garage 

assessment = $5,207 is totally disproportionate as there is little to no enhancement to the value to 

the property. The garage fronts the same 40’ as my home. It will not add any additional value to this 

parcel. 

lam paying 50% more for the same forty feet of road frontage that my home and garage 

share. 

At the April 1, 2025 road repair meeting 

| presented each member of the board copies of newspaper

Page 3

ep, 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

See Attached Sheet for: 

Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

Yes 

OJ No 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

November 18,2022; April 1, 2025 

If No, explain: 

Fee Information: 

A fee of $100.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal. 

Signature required 

TT 

Petitioner ori 

ntative’s Signature: 

5 

— 

aca 

= 

=

Page 4

Rick Cawthray 

METROPLEX MI, 98D; oN" 

aml 

12127 W Pierson Rd 

Flushing MI 48433-9716 

2 JUN 2025 

PM $61 

| Aa Tp TRIBUNAL 

Pp, Box 56232 

LON SEG 

Mz 

A807 

SESE 

FT HEE 

LYE 

BURT 

SR 

CT HT 

FUR 

BU 

F

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