Michigan

Seymour Street LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing Respondent

Petitioner: Seymour Street LLC
Respondent: City Of Lansing

Case overview

Docket number: 26-002523-TT
Status: Ready Sched Prehearing Date Certain
CaseType: ET Property
Division: ET
County: Ingham
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
8	Prehearing General Call	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/01/2026	Not recorded	Download
7	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	07/29/2026	Not recorded	Download
6	Proof of service of petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	07/15/2026	Not recorded	Download
5	Order Vacating	Not recorded	4	07/09/2026	Not recorded	Download
4	Order of Default of Petitioner	Not recorded	Not recorded	06/30/2026	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	2	06/30/2026	Not recorded	Download
2	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	04/11/2026	$400.00	Download
1	Notice of Docket Number ET	Not recorded	Not recorded	06/30/2026	Not recorded	Download

Documents

Prehearing_General_Call.2026-09-01_11-44-02.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

NOTICE OF AUGUST 2- 13, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF

PROCEDURE

Seymour Street LLC,

Petitioner,

City Of Lansing,

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

Please be advised that 26-002523 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General

Call commencing August 02, 2027. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be notified at

least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not necessarily

occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure”

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing

for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A party, representative, or interested

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages

of the Tribunal’s website.

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures

by April 5, 2027. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless

disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though admissible)

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing

Statements by April 5, 2027. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on

April 5, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on

August 2, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that

date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s valuation

disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified on the

opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one

week before they are scheduled to appear.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: September 1, 2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

Page 3 of 3

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

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

NOTICE OF AUGUST 2- 13, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF

Page 5

MTT Docket No.

Page 6

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.

26-002523.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JUL 29202 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SEYMOUR STREET LLC 

Petitioner 

v 

MOAHR Docket 26-002523 

Parcel No. 33-01-01-16-130-040 

CITY OF LANSING, 

Respondent 

Jennifer Hendrix, MMAQO 

City Assessor 

124 W. Michigan Avenue 

3rd Floor, City Hall 

Lansing, MI 48933 

(517) 483-4136 

Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION 

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

RESPONDENT, the City of Lansing, through its Assessor, Jennifer Hendrix, hereby responds 

to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

Page 2

MTT Docket # 26-002523 

7. 

10. 

11. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies 

that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax 

year. 

Respondent denies there are any qualified errors or mutual mistake of facts that 

would grant prior years in this appeal. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for reason that they 

do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations and 

leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs for prior year jurisdiction. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 for reason that they 

do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations and 

leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. 

The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value | Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

33-01-01-16-130-040 | $1,261,200 

$630,600 

$396,968 

Respondent contends that the 2026 values for the property identified above are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

33-01-01-16-130-040 | $1,261,200 

$630,600 

$396,968 

The 2026 values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value | Assessed Value 

| Taxable Value 

33-01-01-16-130-040 

$0 

$0 

$0 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 for the reason that it is untrue. In further 

answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted 

amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly 

determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and 

Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional. Further, the subject property did not 

have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax year.

Page 3

MTT Docket # 26-002523 

Dated: I [2812 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR 

CITY OF LANSING 

Pr 

gyedlon Loudeey 

Jennife T 

fer Hendrix, MMAO 

City Assessor, City of Lansing 

3d Floor, City Hall 

124 W Michigan Ave 

Lansing, Michigan 48933 

Telephone: (517) 483-4136 

Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov

Page 4

MTT Docket # 26-002523

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the

following affirmative defenses:

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action

against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s claim for relief.

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981).

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL

205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974).

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law,

discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or

its agents.

Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property

failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the

Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions.

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true

cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property.

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that

the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s

Page 5

MTT Docket # 26-002523 

IL 

Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method 

of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s 

taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. 

I. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

K. 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional 

acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 

L. 

Respondent 

has 

properly 

and 

lawfully 

assessed 

Petitioner’s 

property 

and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

M. 

Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become 

known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner 

is entitled 

to any relief and 

respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal 

be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be

Page 6

STAT

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.

26-002523.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JUL 1.7 2026 

Norman D. Shinkle 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Attorney at Law 

2683 Donna Drive, Williamston, Michigan 

48895 

Ph. 517-655-5992 normshinkle@gmail.com 

July 14, 2026 

Samantha M., Welton, Chief Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Dear Ms. Welton, 

MTT Docket No. 26-002523 

Enclosed please find the Proof of Service for the above captioned matter. 

Although the system shows the docket number was entered on June 30, I did not 

receive it until last week. 

I will meet with Respondent and hopefully avoid a hearing. 

Thank you. 

Respectfully, 

yn 

Norman D. Shinkle

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Seymour Street LLC 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Lansing 

MTT # 26-002523 

Respondent, 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Norman D. Shinkle deposes and says that on the 14" day of July 2026, he did serve a copy of the 

Petition in the above captioned matter on: 

1. 

Director of Equalization 

Ingham County 

PO Box 319 

Mason, MI 48854 

2. 

Ingham County Clerk 

P.O. Box 179 

Mason, MI 48854 

3. 

To the Secretary of Lansing Public Schools 

519 W. Kalamazoo Street 

Lansing, MI 48933 

4. 

Assessors Office 

City of Lansing, Third Floor City Hall, 

124 West Michigan Ave, 

Lansing, MI 48933 

5. 

Mr. Chris Swope, City Clerk 

6, Michigan Department of Treasury 

City of Lansing, City Hall 9" Floor 

Lansing MI 48833 

124 West Michigan Ave, 

Lansing, MI 48933 

by enclosing the same in a sealed envelope addressed to said party of record at the addresses stated

Page 3

m

Norman D. Shinkle 

2683 Donna Drive 

© GRAN 

Williamston 

MI 48895 

! 

ev 

| 

Samantha M. Welton, Chief Clerk 

WE 

53 Ws 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

paAjeoay 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Inti bpjoeijof Jy alt shy 

agg 0g

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.

26-002523 Vacate.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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 

Seymour Street LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-002523 

 

City of Lansing, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER VACATING JUNE 30, 2026 ORDER OF DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order 

holding Petitioner in default on June 30, 2026. The Tribunal erred in the entry of this 

order, as Petitioner properly submitted the correct petition filing fee with the petition. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the June 30, 2026 Order of Default is VACATED. 

 

Petitioner shall file proof of service in conformity with TTR 227(6) within the time period 

prescribed in that subrule. 

 

 

Entered: July 9, 2026 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

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.

ET_Order_of_Default_Petition.2026-06-30_17-22-59.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

Seymour Street LLC,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

City Of Lansing,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not pay the full required fee for the filing of the petition. See TTR 223. As

such, the appeal is not properly pending. See TTR 225. Petitioner must pay the

additional fee amount required for the filing of the petition within 14 days of the entry of

this order. Tribunal rules and information on filing fees can be found on our website at

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Unfortunately, the payment may not be made via e-filing.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.i

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).

By:_______________________________

Entered: June 30, 2026

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

i “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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

Page 2 of 2

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 225(5)

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

Seymour Street LLC,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

City Of Lansing,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not pay the full required fee for the filing of the petition. See TTR 223. As

such, the appeal is not properly pending. See TTR 225. Petitioner must pay the

additional fee amount required for the filing of the petition within 14 days of the entry of

this order. Tribunal rules and information on filing fees can be found on our website at

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Unfortunately, the payment may not be made via e-filing.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.ii

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).

By:_______________________________

Entered: June 30, 2026

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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

ii “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

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 26-002523

Page 2 of 2

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 225(5)

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

Seymour

Page 6

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.

Seymour Street LLC.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

ECEIVED 

B 

raninfo:d60s 26111536-1 

04/13/2% 

Ci: 

6457 

wt: 

$400.00 

APR 1b 2026 

10: 

HORHEN SHINKLE 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Norman D. Shinkle 

Attorney at Law 

2683 Donna Drive, Williamston, Michigan 

48895 

Ph. 517-655-5992 normshinkle@gmail.com 

April 10, 2026 

Samantha M. Welton, Chief Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Dear Ms. Welton, 

MTT Docket No. fo be assigned 

Enclosed please find the Petition for Seymour Street LLC v City of Lansing. Also 

enclosed is a check for the ET Petition Fee of $400.00. 

I await the assigning of a Docket number. 

Thank you. 

Respectfully, 

orman D. 

Shinkle

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Seymour Street LLC 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Lansing 

MTT # (to be assigned) 

Respondent, 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

This Petition is filed on behalf of Seymour Street LLC, Petitioner, through its attorney, Norman 

D. Shinkle, and alleges as follows: 

IL 

2. 

Property Parcel No. 33-01-01-16-130-040. 

The property identified above is real. 

The subject property is 201 commercial. 

The subject property is located in Ingham County The subject property is an office 

building located at 518 (518-520) Seymour Street in Lansing MI. 

Respondent, City of Lansing, is the jurisdiction responsible for the imposition of the real 

property assessments on the subject property. 

Petitioner’s principal office address is 2145 Commons Parkway, Okemos, MI 48864. 

This appeal involves issues relating to both the taxable value and assessed value for tax 

year 2026 and three prior years under MCL 211.534; being tax years 2025, 2024, and 

2023. 

The tax years involved are 2026, 2025, 2024, and 2023. 

The Tribunal’s authority for tax years prior to 2026 is MCL 211.53a. As Petitioner

Page 3

10. The current true cash value, assessment and taxable values as established by Respondent

are:

2026

$1,261,200

$630,600

$396,968

2025

$1,390,000

$695,000

$386,532

2024

$1,380,400

$690,200

$374,910

2023

$1,461,400

$730,700

$357,058

contention of values ar

Assessed

$140,000

$280,000

2025

$400,000

$200,000

2024

$400,000

$200,000

2023

$500,000

$250,000

The values in dispute are

$1,161,200

$490,600

$256,968

$1,190,000

$495,000

$186,532

$1,080,400

$490,200

$174,910

$961,400

$480,700

$107,058

11. Petitioner contends that the True Cash Value exceeds the market value of the property.

The subject property was listed through Martin Commercial Properties Inc. on May 9,

2025, for $495,000. About six potential buyers inquired but there were no offers to

purchase. Petitioner attempted to sell it to one buyer for $250,000 with no success.

Petitioner is very happy to have a buyer that is willing to pay $100,000. After the

commercial inspection was carried out, the Petitioner realized the many serious problems

with the building and should have filed this Petition years ago. Petitioner will work with

Respondent to resolve this matter and hopefully avoid a hearing.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal hear this case and enter an Order

affirming the subject property’s True Cash Values and Taxable values at the Petitioner’s numbers

listed above.

Dated: April 10,2026

A IHU

Page 4

NE ve et 

Norman D. Shinkle 

2683 Donna Drive 

Williamston, MI 48895 

5 Bape 

gt 

GRAND RAPIDS MI 

493 

11 APR 2026 

PM3 

L 

Samantha M. Welton, Chief Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

TH CH UE RU TE ET 

UR 

IT Ae

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.

Seymour Street LLC.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

ECEIVED 

B 

raninfo:d60s 26111536-1 

04/13/2% 

Ci: 

6457 

wt: 

$400.00 

APR 1b 2026 

10: 

HORHEN SHINKLE 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Norman D. Shinkle 

Attorney at Law 

2683 Donna Drive, Williamston, Michigan 

48895 

Ph. 517-655-5992 normshinkle@gmail.com 

April 10, 2026 

Samantha M. Welton, Chief Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Dear Ms. Welton, 

MTT Docket No. fo be assigned 

Enclosed please find the Petition for Seymour Street LLC v City of Lansing. Also 

enclosed is a check for the ET Petition Fee of $400.00. 

I await the assigning of a Docket number. 

Thank you. 

Respectfully, 

orman D. 

Shinkle

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Seymour Street LLC 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Lansing 

MTT # (to be assigned) 

Respondent, 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

This Petition is filed on behalf of Seymour Street LLC, Petitioner, through its attorney, Norman 

D. Shinkle, and alleges as follows: 

IL 

2. 

Property Parcel No. 33-01-01-16-130-040. 

The property identified above is real. 

The subject property is 201 commercial. 

The subject property is located in Ingham County The subject property is an office 

building located at 518 (518-520) Seymour Street in Lansing MI. 

Respondent, City of Lansing, is the jurisdiction responsible for the imposition of the real 

property assessments on the subject property. 

Petitioner’s principal office address is 2145 Commons Parkway, Okemos, MI 48864. 

This appeal involves issues relating to both the taxable value and assessed value for tax 

year 2026 and three prior years under MCL 211.534; being tax years 2025, 2024, and 

2023. 

The tax years involved are 2026, 2025, 2024, and 2023. 

The Tribunal’s authority for tax years prior to 2026 is MCL 211.53a. As Petitioner