Scott A Boshart, Petitioner V Township Of Lincoln, 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 

Scott A Boshart, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003791 

 

Lincoln Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on February 23, 

2026. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ 

date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not 

agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file 

exceptions to the POJ).” 

 

Neither party has filed exceptions to the POJ. 

 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the testimony and evidence submitted 

and made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. The ALJ’s determination that 

Petitioner did not meet their burden of going forward with the evidence is supported by 

the record in this case and applicable statutory authority. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ and finds that dismissal of this case is 

warranted.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

This Order resolves the last pending claim 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 

 

1 See MCL 205.726.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003791 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: March 24, 2026 

smm 

 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

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

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

Scott A Boshart, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003791 

 

Lincoln Township, 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Kari L. Miles, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephone 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

January 21, 2026 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Scott Boshart 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Julia Fletcher 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on July 29, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

answer on October 25, 2024. 

 

The amount of the state equalized value (SEV) or taxable value (TV) in dispute, as set 

forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the 

Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for the subsequent tax year 

is included in this proceeding.2 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value 

(TCV). 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003791 

Page 2 of 6 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, physical losses to 

the property, the lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and physical additions to the 

property, including omitted property (i.e., property not previously assessed). 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of true cash value (TCV), SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 14-008-006-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$106,000

$53,000

$53,000

2025

$106,000

$53,000

$53,000

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on line 1 of the docket maintained in 

this case.10 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that he has protested for the last three years to the March Board of Review (BOR) 

regarding the blight condition of the property directly across the road. 

 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 

10 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003791 

Page 3 of 6 

 

Petitioner testified that he has been to the BOR to reduce the assessment due to the 

blight from across the road. The BOR did not make any reduction for 2024 even though 

nothing has changed from prior years. Petitioner has been speaking with the county 

about the property across the road. There are no other properties with a junkyard 

adjacent to it. Petitioner would not try to sell the house with the junkyard nearby. It is 

difficult for Petitioner to find evidence to prove that the junkyard has a negative impact 

on value; it is common sense that this would reduce the subject property’s value. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

The property’s TCV, SEV and TV as confirmed by the BOR for the tax years at issue: 

 

Parcel Number: 14-008-006-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2024

$174,600

$87,300

$53,298

2025

$159,600

$79,800

$54,950

 

The exhibits offered by Respondent may be viewed on line 4 of the docket maintained 

in this case.11 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Respondent contends 

that the effect of blighted properties on sale prices in the township is reflected in the 

economic condition factor (ECF). 

 

Respondent’s representative testified that blight shows up periodically in the township. 

The ECF picks up the spots of blight. Petitioner did not provide any evidence to the 

BOR to show that the value of the subject property should be lower. The subject 

property is valued per the Assessor’s Manual, and the sales study is done within the 

State Tax Commission recommended process. The property across the street has 

several abandoned cars. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

1. The subject property is located at 1020 Cross Road, Lincoln Township, Huron 

County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential. 

3. Petitioner did not submit any evidence of value for the 2024 or 2025 tax years. 

 

 

 

 

11 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by

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

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

Scott A Boshart,

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

MTT Docket No.: 24-003791

Township Of Lincoln, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone hearing to be conducted as follows. Hearings are 

generally 30 minutes in length. 

HEARING DATE:

January 21, 2026 

HEARING TIME:

2:30 PM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

98265868 

 

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join 

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You 

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call 

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a 

party or parties in default.

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document.

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento.

এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আইনি দলিল, অনুগ্রহ করে কেউ দলিলটিকে অনুবাদ করুন।

.ةقيثولا مجرتت صخش كيدل ىجري ةماه ةينوناق ةقيثو وه اذه

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang 

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003791

Page 2 of 12

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et 

seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. Parties are expected 

to exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses, and administrative law judges, which 

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and choosing a quiet, private location to 

participate in the hearing to limit distractions and ensure minimal background noise. The hearing may be 

recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record, unless otherwise provided for by the 

Tribunal.

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing. 

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the 

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness 

testimony.

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to both the 

Tribunal and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were 

previously submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the 

documents are not timely submitted to both the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be 

excluded. Documents may be submitted to the Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s electronic filing (e-

filing) system. Documents may be sent to the opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to 

submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to the opposing party or their authorized 

representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that party or authorized representative, 

unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other documentation identifying a different 

mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after the Notice of Hearing if they were 

previously submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party in this case.

If a hearing had previously been scheduled in this case and adjourned, and the adjournment order indicates 

that the parties are precluded from submitting any further documentary evidence, no further documentary 

evidence will be accepted even if filed and exchanged as indicated above.

INCLUSION OF SUBSEQUENT TAX YEARS: Subsequent tax year assessments are automatically included 

in valuation appeals once the assessment has been established for that tax year. For purposes of 

administrative efficiency, the Tribunal considers this date April 1st. As such, the parties should submit 

documentation and be prepared to discuss subsequent tax year assessments at hearings to be conducted on 

or after April 1st in a subsequent year. If the hearing is to be conducted prior to April 1st in a subsequent year, 

taxpayers are required to file a new petition and, if necessary, protest the subsequent tax year assessment at 

the March Board of Review for that year. 

MOTIONS/REQUESTS: A motion is a written request filed by a party asking the Tribunal to take certain action. 

The following motions and requests may be filed by either party regarding the scheduled hearing. Motions and 

requests may be submitted to the Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Motions and 

requests may be sent to the opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to submission by e-mail. If 

sent by mail, motions and requests must be sent to the opposing party or their authorized representative at the 

address identified in the petition or answer for that party or authorized representative, unless the party or 

authorized representative filed an appearance or other documentation identifying a different mailing address. 

1. Motion to Adjourn: Parties may request the hearing be rescheduled (i.e. adjourned). The motion must be 

submitted to both the Tribunal and the opposing party at least 28 days before the hearing unless there are 

emergency circumstances. The emergency circumstances must be detailed to justify the granting of what

Page 3

MTT Docket No.

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

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

Scott A Boshart,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003791

Township Of Lincoln,

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. 24-003791

Page 2 of 6

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

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: November 7, 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

Scott A Boshart,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003791

Township Of Lincoln,

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

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

ST

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

Page 1

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

AL 

x TRIBUN 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TA 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

RO 

Rn: DPA 

LANSING 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24003791 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

(989) 874-3084 

First Name: 

Mi: 

Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: 

Lincoln Township 

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

County: 

NA 

Huron 

City or Town: 

State 

ZIP Code: 

Filion 

Mi 

48432 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

NA 

NA 

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

NA 

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

First Name: 

MLL: 

Last Name: 

Julia 

Fletcher 

Firm Name (if any): 

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

PO Box 539 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Port Austin 

Mi 

48467 

Telephone Number: 

Fax Number: 

assessorjulia@gmail.com 

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

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Yes 

jm} No 

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

3 No 

Not Applicable 

| Yes 

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 [. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

Please see Addendum to Respondent's Answer Form 

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 

[a] No 

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

[J yuly 

[J December 

if no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [I] Yes 

[] 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? O Yes 

O 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 

No 

If yss, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

O Yes 

[eA No 

if so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE

Page 3

Prt 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

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

[W] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 0 March 

|] July 

0 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? [| Yes 

[1] No 

i Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: {1 March 

[J] duty 

[J becember 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

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) 

0 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information *use the multiple parce! form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

3214-008-006-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricuitural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Current Assessed Value (also known as so Bn Value) as established by the BOR: 

87300 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

53298 

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

174600 

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

87300 

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

53298

Page 4

Docket No: 24-003791— Addendum to Respondent’s Answer Form 

Valuation of Parcel Number 14-008-006-00 for 2024 

© Section 4: 

Lincoln Township is a rural community located in the “thumb” of Michigan. Properties in 

Lincoln are predominantly agricultural with a population reported by the U.S. Census 

Bureau being 727 in 2020. Currently, there are 771 parcels in the township, 373 are 

agricultural and 365 are residential. 

Petitioner purchased the subject, a residential property, located at 1020 Cross Road, 

Kinde, Michigan 48445 in 1994 [Liber 625; Page 699]. The property located directly 

across the street from the subject was purchased by the current occupant in 2016. Mr. 

Boshart appealed to the March Board of Review (MBOR) in 2020, 2022, 2023 and 2024 

(Exhibit A). 

On June 4, 2024, Julia Fletcher assumed the assessment roll for Lincoln Township as 

the assessor of record. On June 24, 2024, notices of determination were mailed to 

those taxpayers that petitioned the MBOR (Exhibit B). After receiving the notice, 

Boshart contacted Fletcher to discuss the reasoning of the MBOR’s decision; Fletcher, 

who was not present at the MBOR, read what had been entered into the database 

(Exhibit C). Boshart requested a re-appraisal of his property; Fletcher sent, and Boshart 

returned, a Property Information Sheet (PIS) for interior information (Exhibit D). Fletcher 

also explained to Boshart, the process of mass appraisal. 

On October 3, 2024, a field inspection was performed at the subject property with both 

Mr. and Mrs. Boshart present. The subject property improvements were measured and 

photographed (see attached record card, valuation statements -before and after 

inspection on October 3, 2024, photos of subject property and property across street). A

Page 5

Docket No:

Page 6

Docket

Page 7

P

Page 8

Li

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 06 2024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

| 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. 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, Speciat Assessment, or 

Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant 

to Michigan Tex Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving riee 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 

ML 

Last NamefCompany Name 

Scott 

A 

Boshart 

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

1020 Cross Rd 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Kinde 

MI 

148445 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

089-582-0045 

na 

E-mail Address {do not enter unlass you want MTT to send all correzpondence via e-mail) 

sboshart0045@gmail.com 

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

Firet Name 

M.A 

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 correspondenca via e-mail) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

if you are appeaiing more than one parce), are they contiguous or adjoining? 

parcels are you 

Yos* 

No** 

appealing? 

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

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

Page 2

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

Trig 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

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

True Cash and Taxable Value 

O Poverty Exemption 

[OJ Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

a Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[J Exemption from Taxation (other than the denlal of a 

[J Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

For the previous three years 

| have petitioned the BOR to not increase the SEV due to the "blight" 

condition of the property directly across the road, which developed about 2021 with a new owner with a 

long history of such activity. The first year they actually reduced the SEV slightly (even though 

| did not 

request that). The second year they left it as requested. The third year (2024) they denied the petition 

and increased the SEV $33,702. The blight condition has not improved at all. 

| have been dealing with 

Huron County Building and Zoning about enforcing the applicable ordinance(s)/code(s). The property 

owner has been cited/fined and told by the magistrate that he could be cited/fined daily. It has been a 

slow frustrating process with the County that 

| continue to work thru. The Twp Board has done nothing. 

The Township does not have any of its own ordinances. 

| tried to get an explanation from the BOR at their 

July 15th meeting which they chose to adjurn before 

| arrived although 

| had set up that 

| would attend 

before 10AM (| arrived at 9:45AM)with the Twp Supervisor (he is at their meetings) who informed me the 

meeting would go at least to 10AM due to the amount of work they had. They did not/do not schedule an 

ending time. 

| asked for an explanation, as they were all still there discussing their "assessing issues". 

The only answer they reluctantly offered was "they can't keep giving me a break forever". 2024 would 

have been the first year the taxable value would have had to be adjusted. They also have the 

opinion/attitude that the condition of surrounding property has no affect on a given property's value. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [4] Yes 

|] 

No 

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

March 

[J July 

[J December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

O Not required to attend 

Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

0 Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 6) 

(m} Appealing within 36 days of State Tax Commission Order 

0 Appealing within 35 days of receipt 

of Notice of Unoapping

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information *use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

14-008-006-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Compare! 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Davelopmantal 

‘QD 

{chack one) 

Current A 

d Value (also k 

n as State Equ 

Value) as 

biished by the BOR: 

$87,000 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$53,298 

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

$106,000 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. Thia ls your contention of Assessed Value. 

$53,000 

if you belleve the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 

Section 8: Classification Information only the mi Dep't 

of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal 

Parcel identification Number: 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

Real 

Personal 

 {oheck one} 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

What do you beliave Is the property's classification? 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

nagaet Rosaria

Page 4

Mig

Page 5

Linc

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

Scott A Boshart,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003791

Township Of Lincoln,

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: October 15, 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

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

Scott A Boshart,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003791

Township Of Lincoln,

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: October 15, 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

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 06 2024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

| 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. 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, Speciat Assessment, or 

Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant 

to Michigan Tex Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving riee 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 

ML 

Last NamefCompany Name 

Scott 

A 

Boshart 

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

1020 Cross Rd 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Kinde 

MI 

148445 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

089-582-0045 

na 

E-mail Address {do not enter unlass you want MTT to send all correzpondence via e-mail) 

sboshart0045@gmail.com 

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

Firet Name 

M.A 

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 correspondenca via e-mail) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

if you are appeaiing more than one parce), are they contiguous or adjoining? 

parcels are you 

Yos* 

No** 

appealing? 

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

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

Page 2

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

Trig 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

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

True Cash and Taxable Value 

O Poverty Exemption 

[OJ Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Disabled Veterans Exemption 

a Uncapping of Taxable Value 

[J Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property (ESA) 

[J Exemption from Taxation (other than the denlal of a 

[J Classification 

Principal Residence or Qualified Agricultural Exemption) 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

For the previous three years 

| have petitioned the BOR to not increase the SEV due to the "blight" 

condition of the property directly across the road, which developed about 2021 with a new owner with a 

long history of such activity. The first year they actually reduced the SEV slightly (even though 

| did not 

request that). The second year they left it as requested. The third year (2024) they denied the petition 

and increased the SEV $33,702. The blight condition has not improved at all. 

| have been dealing with 

Huron County Building and Zoning about enforcing the applicable ordinance(s)/code(s). The property 

owner has been cited/fined and told by the magistrate that he could be cited/fined daily. It has been a 

slow frustrating process with the County that 

| continue to work thru. The Twp Board has done nothing. 

The Township does not have any of its own ordinances. 

| tried to get an explanation from the BOR at their 

July 15th meeting which they chose to adjurn before 

| arrived although 

| had set up that 

| would attend 

before 10AM (| arrived at 9:45AM)with the Twp Supervisor (he is at their meetings) who informed me the 

meeting would go at least to 10AM due to the amount of work they had. They did not/do not schedule an 

ending time. 

| asked for an explanation, as they were all still there discussing their "assessing issues". 

The only answer they reluctantly offered was "they can't keep giving me a break forever". 2024 would 

have been the first year the taxable value would have had to be adjusted. They also have the 

opinion/attitude that the condition of surrounding property has no affect on a given property's value. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Year(s) you are appealing: 

2024 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [4] Yes 

|] 

No 

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

March 

[J July 

[J December 

If No, check the applicable reason(s): 

O Not required to attend 

Assessment Change Notice was not received by Petitioner 

0 Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 6) 

(m} Appealing within 36 days of State Tax Commission Order 

0 Appealing within 35 days of receipt 

of Notice of Unoapping

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information *use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

14-008-006-00 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Compare! 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Davelopmantal 

‘QD 

{chack one) 

Current A 

d Value (also k 

n as State Equ 

Value) as 

biished by the BOR: 

$87,000 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$53,298 

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

$106,000 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. Thia ls your contention of Assessed Value. 

$53,000 

if you belleve the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 

Section 8: Classification Information only the mi Dep't 

of Treasury may appeal this issue to the Tribunal 

Parcel identification Number: 

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

Real 

Personal 

 {oheck one} 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

What do you beliave Is the property's classification? 

Real 

Personal 

{check one) 

O 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

nagaet Rosaria

Page 4

Mig

Page 5

Linc

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.