Royal Oak Superior Hospitality 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 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002493 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the Stipulation and finds that it comports with the mandates 

of State law.1 As a result, the Tribunal shall enter the parties’ Stipulation. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment including all 

attachments, terms and conditions is GRANTED and ADOPTED, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values as provided in this 

Consent Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment.2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund as 

required by the Consent Judgment within 28 days of the entry of the Consent 

Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall, unless otherwise indicated, include a 

proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and of penalty and 

interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also, unless otherwise indicated, 

separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being 

refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall, unless 

otherwise indicated, bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment and 

the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the 

Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 

days after the issuance of this Consent Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest 

shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002493 

Page 2 of 2 

 

2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, 

through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 

31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at 

the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 

6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) 

after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after 

December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 

2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, 

through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 

30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at 

the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 

9.47%, and (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 

8.66%. 

 

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

 

See docket look up for a copy of stipulation and for any possible refund paragraph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

 

Entered: July 11, 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

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002493 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOEL F. YONO (P67503) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

985 Entrance 

Auburn Hills, MI 483226 

(248) 419-5556 

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 FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT; 

MOTION TO AMEND TO INCLUDE 2025 TAX YEAR 

 

1. 

The case is pending in the __X__ Entire Tribunal ___ Small Claims Division. 

 

2. 

Property Parcel No: 72-20-32-301-034 

 

3. 

The property is located at: 5125 Meijer Drive 

 

4. 

The 2025 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

(TCV=true cash value, AV=assessed value, TV=taxable value) 

Year 

Original TCV 

Original AV 

Original TV 

2025 

$4,728,300 

 

 

$2,364,150 

$2,364,150 

 

5. 

The 2025 and 2025 values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties 

for settlement purposes are: 

(TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value) 

Year 

 Revised TCV 

Revised SEV 

Revised TV 

2025 

$4,200,000 

$2,100,000 

$2,100,000

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002493 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment, Page 2 of 2 

 

 

6. 

If stipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed or tax years 

added through motions to amend that have been granted by the Tribunal, list the separate 

facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over those tax year or 

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

____________________________________________________ 

 

7. 

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties that would 

affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not limited to, the joint 

payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

The parties agree that the stipulation regarding the subject property’s assessed and 

taxable values is strictly for settlement purposes only, and only for the years involved, 

and for no other purpose whatsoever. 

 

Petitioner hereby waives interest attributable to the reduction for all taxing authorities. 

 

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

 //s// Joel F. Yono 

 

 

__________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Joel F. Yono 

 

Signature of Respondent’s authorized representative: 

//s// Laura M. Hallahan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laura M. Hallahan

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 

 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002493 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOEL F. YONO (P67503) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

985 Entrance 

Auburn Hills, MI 483226 

(248) 419-5556 

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 FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT; 

MOTION TO AMEND TO INCLUDE 2025 TAX YEAR 

 

1. 

The case is pending in the __X__ Entire Tribunal ___ Small Claims Division. 

 

2. 

Property Parcel No: 72-20-32-301-034 

 

3. 

The property is located at: 5125 Meijer Drive 

 

4. 

The 2025 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

(TCV=true cash value, AV=assessed value, TV=taxable value) 

Year 

Original TCV 

Original AV 

Original TV 

2025 

$4,728,300 

 

 

$2,364,150 

$2,364,150 

 

5. 

The 2025 and 2025 values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties 

for settlement purposes are: 

(TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value) 

Year 

 Revised TCV 

Revised SEV 

Revised TV 

2025 

$4,200,000 

$2,100,000 

$2,100,000

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002493 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment, Page 2 of 2 

 

 

6. 

If stipulation addresses tax years other than the tax year originally appealed or tax years 

added through motions to amend that have been granted by the Tribunal, list the separate 

facts upon which the parties rely to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over those tax year or 

years (attach additional page if necessary): 

____________________________________________________ 

 

7. 

List separately any special terms or conditions being proposed by the parties that would 

affect the execution of this Consent Judgment including, but not limited to, the joint 

payment of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

The parties agree that the stipulation regarding the subject property’s assessed and 

taxable values is strictly for settlement purposes only, and only for the years involved, 

and for no other purpose whatsoever. 

 

Petitioner hereby waives interest attributable to the reduction for all taxing authorities. 

 

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

 //s// Joel F. Yono 

 

 

__________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

Joel F. Yono 

 

Signature of Respondent’s authorized representative: 

//s// Laura M. Hallahan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laura M. Hallahan

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 082025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

. 

! 

3 

TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFA 

GHIGAN TAX 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

Petitioner, 

Vs. 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002493 

City of Royal Oak, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

(Property Tax Petition) 

On the date below [ 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

Petition 

8. 

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

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-20-32-301-034 

4,728,300 

2,364,150 

2,364,150 

9. 

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

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-20-32-301-034 

3,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,500,000 

10. 

The values' in dispute are. 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

Tv 

72-20-32-301-034 

1,728,300 

864,150 

864,150 

11. 

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: 

@ 

®) 

© 

@ 

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 Petitioners 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 3

Petition 

Dated: June 30, 2025 

/s// Joel FE. Yono 

Joel FE. Yono, Esq. 

985 W. Entrance Drive 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

248 419-5556 

joel.yono@midwestlodginggroup.com

Page 4

Joel F. Yono 

985 W. Entrance Drive 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

METROPLEX MI 480 

2 JUL 2025 

PM 2 

L 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, M1 48909 

hn 

BIGO4615 

US

0

LETT ETRY OY 

0 

EY CT ET ER

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 

 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002493 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JOEL F. YONO 

Attorney for Petitioner 

985 W. Entrance Drive 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

248 419-5556 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

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. Respondent denies that there is a hotel on the 

property as, based on information and belief, there was a partially constructed building 

and partially constructed land improvements on the property as of December 31, 2024. 

 

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 5 

 

5. 

Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 5 

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 

$4,728,300 

$2,364,150 

$2,364,150 

 

9. 

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

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$4,728,300 

$2,364,150 

$2,364,150 

 

10. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$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 5 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Dated: July 8, 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. 

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

Page 4

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer 

Page 4 of 5 

 

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

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. 25-002493

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: 

Seth A. O'Loughlin

/s/

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

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

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002493

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: July 1, 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

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Royal Oak, 

 

Respondent. 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Docket No. 25-002493 

Parcel No. 72-20-32-301-034 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

SEVERED PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) 

 

Petitioner, by and through its representative, Joel F. Yono, contends: 

1. 

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

Parcel Number 

72-20-32-301-034 

Address 

5125 Meijer Drive 

Classification 

Comm 

Use 

Hotel 

County 

Oakland 

Sch Dist Royal Oak 

 

2. 

☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: 

☐ March, ☐ July, ☐ 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: 985 W. Entrance Drive, Auburn 

Hills, MI 48326. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

☒ 

the subject property’s true cash and taxable values 

☐ 

the subject property’s taxable value only 

 

there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No 

☐ 

uniformity of the subject property’s assessment 

☐ 

the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ______ 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2025.

Page 2

Petition 

2 

8. 

The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

72-20-32-301-034 

4,728,300 

2,364,150 

2,364,150 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

72-20-32-301-034 

3,000,000 

1,500,000 

1,500,000 

10. 

The values1 in dispute are. 

 

 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

 

72-20-32-301-034 

1,728,300 

864,150 

864,150 

11. 

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. 

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. 

 

1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.

Page 3

Petition 

3 

 

 

 

//s// Joel F. Yono 

 

Joel F. Yono, Esq. 

985 W. Entrance Drive 

Auburn Hills, MI 48326 

248 419-5556 

Dated: June 30, 2025 

joel.yono@midwestlodginggroup.com

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 

Royal Oak Superior Hospitality LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-002139 & 

 

 

 25-002493 

 

City Of Royal Oak, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2025 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 25-002493 

 

On May 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal permit them to 

amend the petition filed in this case to include the 2025 tax year. 

 

On June 19, 2025, Respondent filed a response to the motion. In the response, 

Respondent states that valuation disclosures and prehearing statements are scheduled 

to be exchanged on July 21, 2025, not allowing “sufficient time for Respondent to 

conduct discovery or prepare a valuation disclosure relevant to the 2025 tax year.” 

Additionally, Respondent requests that the 2025 tax year be severed and assigned a 

new docket number to “prevent severe and unnecessary prejudice to Respondent.” 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion, the response, and case file and finds that 

Petitioner timely filed its Motion to Amend, included the necessary information and filing 

fee, and otherwise met all requirements, as set forth in MCL 205.737 and MCL 

205.735a. Due to the stage in which this case is at, however, and in the interest of 

judicial efficiency, the 2025 tax year shall be severed from this case and assigned to a 

new docket number. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal for the 2025 tax year is 

SEVERED and ASSIGNED to Docket No. 25-002493. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a petition pertaining to the 2025 tax 

year within 21 days of the entry of this order.1 The petition shall note the docket number 

 

1 See TTR 233.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-002139 & 25-002493 

Page 2 of 2 

 

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2025 tax year and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2025 docket number as a “Severed Petition.”2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Tribunal shall issue a Notice of Docket after receipt 

of the petition for the 2025 tax year. 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the appeal for the 2025 tax 

year.3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By 

 

 

Entered: June 24, 2025 

kac/jcr 

 

 

 

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 

 

 

2 Alternatively, the petition may be downloaded from the Tribunal’s website and mailed to the Tribunal via 

United States Postal Service at: Michigan Tax Tribunal, PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. The petition 

may also be delivered to the Tribunal via overnight carrier (UPS, FedEx, or DHL) at: Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, 2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933. 

3 See TTR 237.

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.