S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC, Petitioner V Township Of Krakow, 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 

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

 

Krakow Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner was placed in 

default on September 20, 2024 for failing to file a Small Claims Petition for Valuation 

Appeal, failure to include the required Multiple Parcel form, failure to include a copy of 

the Board of Review (BOR) decision for Parcel No. 061-110- 000-014-00, and failure to 

remit the required petition filing fee. On November 15, 2024, the Tribunal extended the 

time for Petitioner to cure the default by an additional 14 days and they have failed to 

respond.1 Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the latter stated that 

“failure to comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of the case . . .” and 

referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.2 In Grimm, the Michigan Court of Appeals 

summarized factors that the Tribunal should consider before imposing the sanction of 

dismissal. Those factors are: 

 

(1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of 

refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the 

opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) 

the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) 

attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better 

serve the interests of justice.3 

 

Here, Petitioner’s failure to comply with multiple orders has established a history of 

deliberate delay. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and 

considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal 

finds that dismissal is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate in 

light of Petitioner’s history of noncompliance in this case. 

 

 

1 The Tribunal’s November 15, 2024 Order and Extending Time for Petitioner to Cure Default and Order 

of Partial Dismissal provided that “[t]he appeal shall proceed with the valuation and uncapping issues 

only.” Additionally, the Tribunal ordered Petitioner to file the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-

014-00, file a Motion to Set Aside Default, pay the $25.00 motion fee, and file a proof of service indicating 

that the Motion to Set Aside Default and BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00 were served 

on Respondent. 

2 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

3 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

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 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 

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: December 11, 2024 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

smm/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

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 

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

 

Krakow Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

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

was held in default on September 20, 2024, for failing to file a petition on the Small 

Claims Petition for Valuation Appeal, failure to include the required Multiple Parcel form, 

failure to include a copy of the Board of Review (BOR) decision for Parcel No. 061-110-

000-014-00, and for failure to include the required filing fee. On October 3, 2024, 

Petitioner submitted their response including the correct Petition for Valuation Appeal, 

Multiple Parcel form, and required filing fee. Although Petitioner timely responded to the 

Order of Default, their attempt to cure is incomplete because Petitioner failed to include 

the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00. Though the Tribunal finds an 

extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to comply with 

Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a history of 

deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00 from the 

existing tax appeal, for failure to timely comply with this Order.1 

 

Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner includes the issue of a poverty exemption in 

the appeal. However, Petitioner did not protest the denial of a Poverty Exemption to the 

BOR as demonstrated by the submitted BOR petition and decision for Parcel No. 061-

110-000-001-00. A protest to the March, July or December BOR for the tax year 

requesting the exemption is a prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.2 As 

such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise 

disregard a statutory filing requirement or deadline,3 it has no authority to grant 

Petitioner the relief requested.4 The appeal shall proceed with the valuation and 

uncapping issues only. Therefore, 

 

1 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

 

2 MCL 211.7u. 

3 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). 

4 The Tribunal also has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do 

not establish a prima facie case indicating that the assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

Page 2 of 3 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00, (2) file a Motion to 

Set Aside Default, (3) pay the $25.00 fee required for the filing of the motion and (4) file 

proof the motion and the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00 were served 

on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the 

entry of this Order.5 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal shall continue for the Valuation and 

Uncapping issues only. 

 

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 

 

error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an 

erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). See International Place Apartments – 

IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 

425 (2006), Eltel Associates, LLC v City of Pontiac, 278 Mich App 588 (2008), and Briggs Tax Service, 

LLC v Detroit Public Schools, 483 Mich 1024 (2009). 

5 “A submission by mail is considered filed

Page 3

MTT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

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 

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

 

Krakow Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

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

was held in default on September 20, 2024, for failing to file a petition on the Small 

Claims Petition for Valuation Appeal, failure to include the required Multiple Parcel form, 

failure to include a copy of the Board of Review (BOR) decision for Parcel No. 061-110-

000-014-00, and for failure to include the required filing fee. On October 3, 2024, 

Petitioner submitted their response including the correct Petition for Valuation Appeal, 

Multiple Parcel form, and required filing fee. Although Petitioner timely responded to the 

Order of Default, their attempt to cure is incomplete because Petitioner failed to include 

the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00. Though the Tribunal finds an 

extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to comply with 

Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a history of 

deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00 from the 

existing tax appeal, for failure to timely comply with this Order.1 

 

Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner includes the issue of a poverty exemption in 

the appeal. However, Petitioner did not protest the denial of a Poverty Exemption to the 

BOR as demonstrated by the submitted BOR petition and decision for Parcel No. 061-

110-000-001-00. A protest to the March, July or December BOR for the tax year 

requesting the exemption is a prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.2 As 

such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise 

disregard a statutory filing requirement or deadline,3 it has no authority to grant 

Petitioner the relief requested.4 The appeal shall proceed with the valuation and 

uncapping issues only. Therefore, 

 

1 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

 

2 MCL 211.7u. 

3 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). 

4 The Tribunal also has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do 

not establish a prima facie case indicating that the assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

Page 2 of 3 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00, (2) file a Motion to 

Set Aside Default, (3) pay the $25.00 fee required for the filing of the motion and (4) file 

proof the motion and the BOR decision for Parcel No. 061-110-000-014-00 were served 

on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the 

entry of this Order.5 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal shall continue for the Valuation and 

Uncapping issues only. 

 

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 

 

error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an 

erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). See International Place Apartments – 

IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 

425 (2006), Eltel Associates, LLC v City of Pontiac, 278 Mich App 588 (2008), and Briggs Tax Service, 

LLC v Detroit Public Schools, 483 Mich 1024 (2009). 

5 “A submission by mail is considered filed

Page 3

MTT

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

Page 1

' 

RECEIVED 

p_— 

0CT 07 2024 

en] 

| 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

Do not use this form to appeal Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Special Assessment, or 

Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal 

(e.g. Board of Review Decision or Notice of Uncapping) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not 

submit this document, you may be held in default. 

Section 1: Petitioner's Contact Information 

First Name 

Mm. 

Last Name/Company Name 

4 Designated Owners: see attached 

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

City or Town 

State 

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

First Name 

M.1. 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

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 

appealing? 

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

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Issues Being Appealed (check al that apply) 

4 True Cash and Taxable Value 

[4 Poverty Exemption 

{3 Taxable Value Only (caiculation) 

] Disabled Veterans Exemption 

[wi] Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[0 Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

"1 Exemption from Taxation {other than the denial of a 

[J Classification 

Principal Residence or Quaiified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

The property In question is at 14568 Mindack Greek Rd. Alpena, MI and has been in the Hoppe family since 1904, it was originally owned by Chester Hoppe and upon 

his death was transferred to his three daughters and son-in-taw (Louise E. Bertolini, Elaine C. Pace, Lorraine A. Reuther & Robert A. Reuther), The four individuals 

have owned the property for two decades and that fact has not changed. 

In an effort ta keep the family cottage in perpetuity the four named owners crested S&C Hoppe Cottage, LLC and opled to hold the title of the property in this new 

format which was our cottage succession plan rather that a witl or trust. Since the family is so large, we determined that it would cause havoc with our heirs had we 

not established a LLC. In reality, there has bean no change in properly ownership, and therefore should not be uncapped. Taxes should only be increased when 

passed on to another generation or a “real” transfer of ownership lakes place. Currently the cottage remains tha sole responsibility of the the four current owners. 

These four owners, alt retirees In their 80s are on limited incomes and are responsible fot the upkeep and taxes on the cottage. The ownership of the cottage remains 

until all four are deceased. We are not engaged in any form of business, but rather are using the LLC as a vehicle for holding the family cottage in the family without 

fouds among the heirs in the future. When establishing the Family Cottage LLC the current owners expected that the Michigan Tax Tribunal would consider that this is 

not an actual transfer of ownership and would make an exemption to this increase In taxes for that reason. We reatize that itis at the discretion of the Tribunal and we 

request 

that our situation be evatuated on an individual basis and determine that this supposed “transfer of ownership” be exempt from a tax increase. 

Krakow Township Assessing department set forth figures based on their erroneous hetief that a transfer of ownership took place.. Because of the name change and 

the LLC they determined that there was a change of ownership. Taxes for 2023 were $2023.49 and for 2024 taxes are $4281.14, and increase of 100 percent. This 

increase In taxes is especially challenging for us as seniors as our pensions afier anly non and or minimat cost-of-living increases. We request that you consider our 

circumstance and treat our case on an individuat basis. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Dld you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [Wm] Yes 

No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended AND attach the BOR decision: [J March 

[J duly 

[J December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

[A Not required to attend 

[I] Assessmant Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

[] Appealing a purported Clarical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Ordar

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition? 

[Mm] Yes 

[i]

Page 4

D

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

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442

Township Of Krakow,

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.

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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003442

Page 2 of 16

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

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: October 1, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 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

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442

Township Of Krakow,

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

Page 4

M

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

SEP 27 uch 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1, BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24-003442 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Krakow Township 

M.A: 

Telephone Number: 

989-734-3555 

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

County: 

PO Box 25 

Presque Isle 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Rogers City 

Ml 

49779 

Fax Number: 

989-734-9901 

info@assessingoffice.com 

E-mail Address (do not enter uniess you want MTT to send all correspondence via emall): 

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

1 

First Name: 

Allan/Kelli/Cara 

mi: 

Last Name: 

Berg/Ableidinger/Rose 

Firm Name (if any): Assessing Office 

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

PO Box 25 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Rogers City 

MI 

49779 

Fax Number: 

Telephone Number: 

089-734-3555 

989-734-9901 

info@assessingoffice.com 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

0 Yes 

[74 No 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

Myes 

[Ine 

OO Not Applicable 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If not, list which parcels adjoin one another,

Page 2

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 

On 10/16/2023, the subject parcels were conveyed from Lorraine and Robert Reuther 

Et Al to S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC via deed recorded as Liber 693 Page 389. The 

parcels were properly uncapped for 2024. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER iS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [¥ Yes 

|] No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [W] March 

[Hj July 

Oa December 

If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? | Yes 

0 No 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer, 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at Issue, did it have authority? [I] Yes 

[5] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [mE] Yes 

No 

If yes, explain 

is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

(I) Yes 

No 

if so, what Is the issue date?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? [i] Yes 

O No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [| March 

[I July 

fm} December 

List the date the BOR denied Petitioner's Poverty Exemption: 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption at a BOR? O Yes 

[1H] No 

if Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [} March 

[| July 

[I] December 

Tax Year(s) denled: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you believe the classification should be: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

a 

Agricuftural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information russ the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel identification Number: 

061-110-000-001-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

Agricultural 

Commerclal 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

137,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

137,600 

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

275,200 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

137,600 

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

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

MULTIPLE PARCEL ATTACHMENT TO ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24-003442 

Respondent's Contact Information: 

Local Unit of Government/First Name: 

M.L 

Last Name: 

Krakow Township 

Valuation Information: 

“061-110-000-014-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

Agricuitural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

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

6,700 

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 

6,700 

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

13,400 

Divide the fair market value by 2 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 

6,700 

If your contention of Taxable Value differs

Page 5

Rec

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 

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

 

Krakow Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Petitioner filed a petition on 

May 30, 2024. The petition is not properly pending for the following reasons. Petitioner 

filed the petition on a Small Claims answer form. Petitioner is required to use the Small 

Claims Petition for Valuation Appeal. Petitioner is required to utilize the Multiple Parcel 

Attachment to Petition Form for a multi-parcel filing. The petition and multi-parcel form 

are available on the Tribunal’s website, under Small Claims forms. Further, Petitioner 

did not file the notice giving rise to the appeal (Board of Review decision) for Parcel No. 

061-110-000-014-00. Petitioner also did not pay the required petition filing fee. 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: submit the completed petition for valuation appeal, multi-parcel attachment, 

notice giving rise to the appeal, and pay the petition filing fee. The foregoing must be 

filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.1 

 

Failure to comply with this Order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to 

set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: September 20, 2024 

bw/jcr 

 

 

1 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 219(5).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003442 

Page 2 of 2 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

S&C Hoppe Cottage, LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442

Township Of Krakow,

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 279. 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: September 17, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

Louise E Bertolini

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC

35730 Huntley Ct

New Baltimore , MI 48047

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

S&C Hoppe Cottage, LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442

Township Of Krakow,

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 279. 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: September 17, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 4

Elaine C Hoppe

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC

35730 Huntley Ct

New Baltimore , MI 48047

Page 5

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

S&C Hoppe Cottage, LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003442

Township Of Krakow,

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 279. 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: September 17, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 6

Lorraine A Reuther

S&C Hoppe Cottage LLC

35730 Huntley Ct

New Baltimore , MI 48047

Page 7

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN

Page 8

Robert A

Page 9

STATE OF

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JUL 2 8 2024 

MEMO 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

To: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

From: 

Louise E. Bertolini, Elaine C. Pace, Lorraine A. Reuther, Robert A. Reuther 

Date: 

July 18, 2024 

Re: 

Property Tax Appeal Answer Form 

We are resubmitting the Property Tax appeal Answer Form that we originally submitted 

May 29, 2024. We realized that in our rush, as citizens over 80 years old, to get the form 

submitted that we made several errors and request that you consider this new form 

when considering our appeal. Thank you.

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name: 

Ml: 

tast Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Four Owners: See Attached Sheet 

Home Address (No., Street, P.0. Box or Rural Route): 

County: 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send alt correspondence via email): 

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

First Name: 

M.L: 

Last Name: 

| 

| 

Firm Name (if any): 

| 

| 

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

| 

City or Tawn: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

E-mait Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): 

Section 3: Subject Property information 

Doss the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

[I] Yes 

[iS No 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

if not, list which parcels adjoin one another. 

| 

| 

| 

[A ves 

[Od No 

[J NotApplicable

Page 3

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 

The property in question is at 14568 Mindack Creek Rd. Alpena, MI. It has been in the Hoppe family since 1904. It was originally 

owned by Chester Hoppe and upon his death was transferred to his three daughters and son-in-law {Louise E. Bertolini, Elaine 

C. Pace, Lorraine A. Reuther & Robert A. Reuther). The four individuals have owned the property together for two decades and 

that fact has not changed. 

In an effort to keep the family cottage in perpetuity the four named property owners created S&C Hoppe Cottage, LLC and opted 

to hold title to the property in this new format—a cotiage succession plan rather than a will or trust since the family is so large it 

would cause havoc with our heirs. (n reality, there has been no change in property ownership, and it should not be uncapped. 

Taxes should only be increased when passed on to another generation or a "real" transfer of ownership takes place. At this time 

the cottage remains the responsibility of the current owners. 

These four owners, all retirees in their 80s on limited incomes, are responsible for the upkeep and taxes of the cottage and the 

ownership remains until all four are deceased. We are not engaged in some form of business but rather are using the LLC as a 

vehicle for holding the family cottage in the family without feuds among the heirs. When establishing the Family Cottage LLC the 

current owners expected that the Michigan Tax Tribunal would determine that this is not an actual transfer of ownership and 

should be exempt from a property tax increase. in establishing this LLC we realized that we would be at the disgression of the 

tribunal, and our request to you is that our situation be evaluated individually and determine that this particular transfer of 

ownership be exempt from a tax increase. 

Krakow Township Assessing Department set forth figures that have not been substantiated by any supporting facts that there 

has been an increase in evaluations of the property other than the 2024 Inflation rate. Taxes for 2023 were $2023.49, and now 

for 2024 we have been billed $4,281.14, an increase of 100 percent. This increase in taxation is particularly hard on us as elders 

who have a very limited cost of living increases in our pensions. We think that each case should be treated individually and 

exemptions made based on of our current situation as elder citizens. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [(] Yes 

[¥] No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [I] March 

[} July 

[m} December 

If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [4 Yes 

[m} No 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. 

if the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? [¥] Yes 

[Ml] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of 

a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [w;] Yes 

[ma] No 

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

0 Yes 

4 No 

if so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE 

When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? 

Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? 

March 06, 2024 Transfer of Ownership 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A POVERTY EXEMPTION

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER

Page 5

Section

Page 6

0

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 

WA 312004 Yo, Lp 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Respondent's Contact Information 

First Name: 

M.L: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

See Attatched Paper 

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

County: 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

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

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

First Name: 

Ml: 

Last Name: 

Firm Name (if any): 

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

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

[ves 

I no 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If not, list which parcels adjoin one another. 

ves 

[Ino 

[7] Motapplicable

Page 2

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 

The property in question is at 14568 Mindack Creek Rd. Alpena, MI. it has been in the Hoppe 

family since 1904. It was originally owned by Chester Hoppe and upon his death was 

transferred to his three daughters and son-in-law (Louise E. Bertolini, Elaine C. Hoppe, 

Lorraine A. Reuther & Robert A. Reuther). The four individuals have owned the property 

together for two decades and that fact has not changed. 

in an effort to keep the family cottage in perpetuity the four named property owners created 

S&C Hoppe Cottage and opted to hold title to the property in this new format—a cottage 

succession plan. In reality, there has been no change in property ownership, and it should not 

be uncapped. Taxes should only be increased when passed on to another generation. At this 

time the cottage remains the responsibility of the current owners. Currently, these four owners, 

all retirees on limited incomes are responsible for upkeep and taxes and the ownership 

remains until all four are deceased. We are not engaged in some form of business but rather 

are using the LLC as a vehicle for holding the family cottage. When establishing the Family 

Cottage LLC the current owners expected that the Michigan Tax Tribunal would determine that 

this is not a transfer of ownership and should be exempt from a property tax increase. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? ves 

[Ano 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [3 march 

[J uly 

[J becember 

if no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [A ves 

[Ino 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? 

Yes 

[i] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [¥] Yes 

[0] No 

If yes, explain 

ts Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

J Yes 

[wil No 

If so, what is the issue date?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? [J Yes 

No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [| March 

[} July 

[ml] December 

List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption ata BOR? [0] Yes 

[i] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: O March 

[| July 

d December 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

2024 

March 06, 2024 

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? 

Assessing Department inaccurately claims there is a change of ownership 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you believe the classification should be: 

Reali 

Personal 

(check one) 

a 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information *use the muitiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parce! Identification Number: 

061-110-000-001-00 

 061-110-000-014-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Current Assessed Value {also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

$137,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$137,600 

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

$275,200 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

$69,914 

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

Page 4

Sectio

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 

WA 312004 Yo, Lp 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Respondent's Contact Information 

First Name: 

M.L: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

See Attatched Paper 

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

County: 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

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

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

First Name: 

Ml: 

Last Name: 

Firm Name (if any): 

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

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

[ves 

I no 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If not, list which parcels adjoin one another. 

ves 

[Ino 

[7] Motapplicable

Page 2

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 

The property in question is at 14568 Mindack Creek Rd. Alpena, MI. it has been in the Hoppe 

family since 1904. It was originally owned by Chester Hoppe and upon his death was 

transferred to his three daughters and son-in-law (Louise E. Bertolini, Elaine C. Hoppe, 

Lorraine A. Reuther & Robert A. Reuther). The four individuals have owned the property 

together for two decades and that fact has not changed. 

in an effort to keep the family cottage in perpetuity the four named property owners created 

S&C Hoppe Cottage and opted to hold title to the property in this new format—a cottage 

succession plan. In reality, there has been no change in property ownership, and it should not 

be uncapped. Taxes should only be increased when passed on to another generation. At this 

time the cottage remains the responsibility of the current owners. Currently, these four owners, 

all retirees on limited incomes are responsible for upkeep and taxes and the ownership 

remains until all four are deceased. We are not engaged in some form of business but rather 

are using the LLC as a vehicle for holding the family cottage. When establishing the Family 

Cottage LLC the current owners expected that the Michigan Tax Tribunal would determine that 

this is not a transfer of ownership and should be exempt from a property tax increase. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? ves 

[Ano 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [3 march 

[J uly 

[J becember 

if no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [A ves 

[Ino 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? 

Yes 

[i] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [¥] Yes 

[0] No 

If yes, explain 

ts Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

J Yes 

[wil No 

If so, what is the issue date?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? [J Yes 

No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [| March 

[} July 

[ml] December 

List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption ata BOR? [0] Yes 

[i] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: O March 

[| July 

d December 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

2024 

March 06, 2024 

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? 

Assessing Department inaccurately claims there is a change of ownership 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you believe the classification should be: 

Reali 

Personal 

(check one) 

a 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information *use the muitiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parce! Identification Number: 

061-110-000-001-00 

 061-110-000-014-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Current Assessed Value {also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

$137,600 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$137,600 

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

$275,200 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

$69,914 

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

Page 4

Sectio

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.