Scott Paul Franzel, Petitioner V Township Of Watertown, 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 Paul Franzel, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

 

Watertown Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On December 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to set aside default. 

 

Respondent has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and case file and finds that Petitioner was 

placed in default on October 30, 2024, because they did not file a severed petition. On 

November 26, 2024, the Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by 

an additional 14 days. Petitioner responded by filing a motion but did not file the 

required petition. Further, it is unclear from the motion whether Petitioner wishes to 

proceed with a 2024 valuation appeal. 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.1 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.2 

 

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

deliberate delay. As a result, after considering 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 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER 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: January 14, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw/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 

 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

1. A default was entered against me on _________________ and, if applicable, the default 

was extended on _________________. 

 

2. Good cause exists to set aside the default because: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. I ask this Tribunal to set aside the default. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

Party/Representative (sign here) 

 

_________________________________________ 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

 

 

 

I certify that on this date I served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

(sign here) 

 

Scott Paul Franzel

24-0003561

Watertown Townshjp

10-30-24

11-26-24

My fustration with the tax tribunal was in my opinion a waste of my time to continue my case because as 

the Dec 31 date was when my new house was completed, but it was a complete loss on January 11,. So 

the entire year except for a couple weeks there was not a home to be taxed. The tax tribinal stated that is 

was because it was there on the Dec 31. My new house was compeleted on Dec. 21 so the Dec 31 it was 

there again rebuilt, but not for the entire year of the tax year.

Scott Paul Franzel

Scott Paul Franzel

11-11-24

Scott Paul Franzel

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 Paul Franzel, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

 

Watertown Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On December 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to set aside default. 

 

Respondent has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and case file and finds that Petitioner was 

placed in default on October 30, 2024, because they did not file a severed petition. On 

November 26, 2024, the Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by 

an additional 14 days. Petitioner responded by filing a motion but did not file the 

required petition. Further, it is unclear from the motion whether Petitioner wishes to 

proceed with a 2024 valuation appeal. 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.1 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.2 

 

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

deliberate delay. As a result, after considering 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 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER 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: January 14, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw/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 

 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

1. A default was entered against me on _________________ and, if applicable, the default 

was extended on _________________. 

 

2. Good cause exists to set aside the default because: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. I ask this Tribunal to set aside the default. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

Party/Representative (sign here) 

 

_________________________________________ 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

 

 

 

I certify that on this date I served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the 

opposing party or their representative. 

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

(sign here) 

 

Scott Paul Franzel

24-0003561

Watertown Townshjp

10-30-24

11-26-24

My fustration with the tax tribunal was in my opinion a waste of my time to continue my case because as 

the Dec 31 date was when my new house was completed, but it was a complete loss on January 11,. So 

the entire year except for a couple weeks there was not a home to be taxed. The tax tribinal stated that is 

was because it was there on the Dec 31. My new house was compeleted on Dec. 21 so the Dec 31 it was 

there again rebuilt, but not for the entire year of the tax year.

Scott Paul Franzel

Scott Paul Franzel

11-11-24

Scott Paul Franzel

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 Paul Franzel, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

Township Of Watertown,

Respondent.

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

The Tribunal has considered the file in the above-captioned case and finds that it 

entered an order holding Petitioner in default on October 30, 2024.1 Petitioner was 

required to cure the default within 14 days. Petitioner has had ample time to comply, yet 

has failed to respond or submit the required filings. 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 the case for failure to timely comply with 

this Order.2 Therefore,

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 documentation required by the October 30, 2024default order, (2) file 

a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3) file proof the Motion and a copy of the 

documentation were served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the 

Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the case, as provided by 

TTR 231.3 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: November 26, 2024

1 The Order further stated, “Failure to comply with this Order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

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

3 See also MCL 205.732.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003561

Page 2 of 4

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 Paul Franzel, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

Township Of Watertown,

Respondent.

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

The Tribunal has considered the file in the above-captioned case and finds that it 

entered an order holding Petitioner in default on October 30, 2024.4 Petitioner was 

required to cure the default within 14 days. Petitioner has had ample time to comply, yet 

has failed to respond or submit the required filings. 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 the case for failure to timely comply with 

this Order.5 Therefore,

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 documentation required by the October 30, 2024default order, (2) file 

a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3) file proof the Motion and a copy of the 

documentation were served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the 

Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the case, as provided by 

TTR 231.6 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: November 26, 2024

4 The Order further stated, “Failure to comply with this Order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

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

6 See also MCL 205.732.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-003561

Page 4 of 4

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 

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 Paul Franzel, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

 

Watertown Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that the Tribunal severed the 

above-captioned docket from docket number 23-000882 on September 27, 2024. The 

order severing this case required Petitioner to file a petition pertaining to the 2024 tax 

year within 21 days of entry of the order. Petitioner failed to respond or submit a 

petition. Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to file the petition is appropriate 

under TTR 231(1), Petitioner shall be placed in default. Additionally, 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 the dismissal of this case for failure to 

timely comply with this order.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file a petition pertaining to the 2024 tax 

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

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2024 tax year and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2024 docket number as a “Severed Petition.” 

 

Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case.2 

 

 

 

Entered: October 30, 2024 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw/jcr 

 

 

 

 

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

2 TTR 231(1). See also MCL 205.732.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003561 

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 

 

Scott Paul Franzel, 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 23-000882 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

 

Watertown Township, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Mark Perry 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-003561 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephone 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

April 8, 2024 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Scott Paul Franzel 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Jeannie Diaz 

 

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and taxable 

value (TV), for the tax year at issue, shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 240-032-100-010-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$270,800

$135,400

$99,771

 

The 2024 tax year shall be severed and assigned a new docket number. 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the property’s assessment to the 2023 March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a Petition with the Tribunal on May 2, 2023, and Respondent filed an 

Answer on May 24, 2023. 

 

On December 20, 2023, the Tribunal issued an order scheduling a continued hearing 

because the testimony and evidence presented by the parties in the original hearing 

was insufficient to for the Tribunal to render a decision.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 23-000882 

Page 2 of 9 

 

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 subsequent tax years 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 

 

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). 

 

3. What was the taxable status of the subject property land and improvements to 

the land provided by MCL 211.2(2). 

 

 

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). 

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).

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 23-000882 

Page 3 of 9 

 

“The taxable status of persons and real and personal property for a tax year shall be 

determined as of each December 31 of the immediately preceding year, which is 

considered the tax day, any provisions in the charter of any city or village to the contrary 

notwithstanding.” 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 240-032-100-010-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$25,000

$12,500

$12,500

 

Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 

 

1. Evidence, filed on May 2, 2023 

a. Fire investigation summary 

2. Evidence, filed on May 5, 2023 

a. 2023 Board of Review Decision 

3. Evidence, filed on November 20, 2023 

a. Photographs 

b. Town & Country Realty, LLC listings 

 

No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

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

that the subject property is overvalued in light of the total loss of the home due to fire. 

The subject property burned down on January 9, 2023, and Petitioner questions how he 

can be assessed for a home that did not existing during 2023. Petitioner believes his 

taxes should be based on vacant land only. 

 

Petitioner provided testimony that the tax year 2023 values and taxes should be 

prorated because the home was destroyed by fire nine days after tax day. Petitioner 

further testified that the Tribunal has the discretion to make such adjustments. 

 

B. Respondent’s Evidence 

 

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

 

Parcel Number: 240-032-100-010-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$270,800

$135,400

$99,771

 

Respondent offered the following exhibits:

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 23-000882 

Page 4 of 9 

 

 

1. Evidence, filed on May 24, 2023 

a. 2023 Board of Review Decision 

b. Petition to BOR & BOR decision 

c. March 2023 BOR Minutes 

d. 2023 property record card 

2. Evidence, filed on November

Page 5

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.