Statewide Meskill LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Columbus Respondent

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESPONDENT TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

DEFAULT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ATTACHED ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent Township of Columbus (“Respondent”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, respectfully moves the Tribunal for an order setting aside the default entered 

August 25, 2026, accepting Respondent’s attached Entire Tribunal Answer, and restoring 

Respondent to active participation in this matter. In support, Respondent states: 

1. 

Petitioner filed this property-tax appeal in the Entire Tribunal under MTT 

Docket No. 26-001113. 

2. 

On August 25, 2026, the Tribunal entered an Order of Default. The Order 

states that Respondent filed a Small Claims answer although the matter was pending in 

the Entire Tribunal.

Page 2

3. 

The Order directed Respondent to file and serve an Entire Tribunal 

answer, with proof of service, within 14 days of entry. The Order further provides that a 

party failing to comply must file a motion to set aside the default with the appropriate 

filing fee. 

4. 

Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal set aside the default and 

accept the attached proposed Entire Tribunal Answer. 

5. 

Respondent’s assessor made a good-faith effort to respond to the appeal 

by filing a Property Tax Appeal Answer Form. The response was submitted on the Small 

Claims form rather than as an Entire Tribunal answer. The resulting procedural error was 

inadvertent and was not an intent to abandon Respondent’s defense of this matter. 

6. 

The Township forwarded the case file to undersigned counsel on August 

27, 2026. The file then required processing through counsel’s office for conflict review 

and initial file review. During that period, counsel also attempted to obtain from the 

Township the actual date and proof of service of the petition bearing the Tribunal’s 

docket number. 

7. 

According to the Tribunal docket, the Order of Default was entered on 

August 25, 2026. That Order was not provided to undersigned counsel with the file and 

had not otherwise been received by undersigned counsel before September 9, 2026. 

8. 

The 14-day period set by the Order included the Labor Day holiday 

weekend. Undersigned counsel’s office was closed on Friday, August 28, 2026, and 

Tuesday, September 8, 2026, in connection with that holiday weekend.

Page 3

9. 

On September 9, 2026, undersigned counsel accessed the Tribunal docket 

and learned that the Tribunal had entered the default and that the time specified in the 

Order to cure it had expired. Respondent promptly prepared this Motion, the proposed 

Entire Tribunal Answer, proposed order, and proof of service. 

10. 

The sequence of events described above was not willful, deliberate, or 

intended to delay this proceeding. Respondent had previously attempted to respond 

through its assessor, but the response was submitted on a Small Claims form rather than 

as an Entire Tribunal answer. 

11. 

Petitioner will not suffer material prejudice if the default is set aside and 

the proposed answer is accepted. The matter concerns a 2026 property-tax

Page 4

T

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I certify that on September 9, 2026, I served the following documents in the above-

captioned matter: 

1. Respondent Township of Columbus’ Motion to Set Aside Default and for Leave to File 

Attached Entire Tribunal Answer; 

2. Respondent Township of Columbus’ Entire Tribunal Answer to Petition; and 

3. Proposed Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Set Aside Default and Accepting 

Entire Tribunal Answer. 

The documents were served upon counsel for Petitioner, Aaron M. Fales, Esq., Law Office 

of Aaron M. Fales, P.C., 330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350, Birmingham, Michigan 48009, by 

FIRST-CLASS U.S. MAIL / EMAIL TO: afaleslaw@gmail.com. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul B. Addis 

Paul Addis (P61691) 

Attorney for Respondent Township of Columbus 

ADDIS LAW FIRM, PLLC 

18 1ST Street 

Mt. Clemens, MI 48043 

paddis@theaddislawfirm.com

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

AND ACCEPTING ENTIRE TRIBUNAL ANSWER 

 

At a session of the Michigan Tax Tribunal, 

held in Lansing, Michigan, on _____________________, 2026. 

 

The Tribunal, having reviewed Respondent Township of Columbus’ Motion to Set Aside 

Default and for Leave to File Attached Entire Tribunal Answer, the accompanying 

materials, any response, and the record, finds that good cause exists to grant the requested 

relief. 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent Township of Columbus’ Motion to Set Aside Default 

and for Leave to File Attached Entire Tribunal Answer is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the default entered against Respondent on August 

25, 2026, is SET ASIDE.

Page 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s Entire Tribunal Answer is accepted as 

filed as of ______________________. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is restored to active participation in this 

proceeding. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall proceed in accordance with the 

Tribunal’s rules and further orders. 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

By: ______________________________ 

Administrative Law Judge / Tribunal 

Member 

Dated: ___________________________

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

Docket Number: 26-001113

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Respondent

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Misc Documents

Attachment File Name: Proposed order to set aside default

Document Type: Proof of Service: Misc Documents

Attachment File Name: PROOF OF SERVICE

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESPONDENT TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE 

DEFAULT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ATTACHED ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent Township of Columbus (“Respondent”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, respectfully moves the Tribunal for an order setting aside the default entered 

August 25, 2026, accepting Respondent’s attached Entire Tribunal Answer, and restoring 

Respondent to active participation in this matter. In support, Respondent states: 

1. 

Petitioner filed this property-tax appeal in the Entire Tribunal under MTT 

Docket No. 26-001113. 

2. 

On August 25, 2026, the Tribunal entered an Order of Default. The Order 

states that Respondent filed a Small Claims answer although the matter was pending in 

the Entire Tribunal.

Page 2

3. 

The Order directed Respondent to file and serve an Entire Tribunal 

answer, with proof of service, within 14 days of entry. The Order further provides that a 

party failing to comply must file a motion to set aside the default with the appropriate 

filing fee. 

4. 

Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal set aside the default and 

accept the attached proposed Entire Tribunal Answer. 

5. 

Respondent’s assessor made a good-faith effort to respond to the appeal 

by filing a Property Tax Appeal Answer Form. The response was submitted on the Small 

Claims form rather than as an Entire Tribunal answer. The resulting procedural error was 

inadvertent and was not an intent to abandon Respondent’s defense of this matter. 

6. 

The Township forwarded the case file to undersigned counsel on August 

27, 2026. The file then required processing through counsel’s office for conflict review 

and initial file review. During that period, counsel also attempted to obtain from the 

Township the actual date and proof of service of the petition bearing the Tribunal’s 

docket number. 

7. 

According to the Tribunal docket, the Order of Default was entered on 

August 25, 2026. That Order was not provided to undersigned counsel with the file and 

had not otherwise been received by undersigned counsel before September 9, 2026. 

8. 

The 14-day period set by the Order included the Labor Day holiday 

weekend. Undersigned counsel’s office was closed on Friday, August 28, 2026, and 

Tuesday, September 8, 2026, in connection with that holiday weekend.

Page 3

9. 

On September 9, 2026, undersigned counsel accessed the Tribunal docket 

and learned that the Tribunal had entered the default and that the time specified in the 

Order to cure it had expired. Respondent promptly prepared this Motion, the proposed 

Entire Tribunal Answer, proposed order, and proof of service. 

10. 

The sequence of events described above was not willful, deliberate, or 

intended to delay this proceeding. Respondent had previously attempted to respond 

through its assessor, but the response was submitted on a Small Claims form rather than 

as an Entire Tribunal answer. 

11. 

Petitioner will not suffer material prejudice if the default is set aside and 

the proposed answer is accepted. The matter concerns a 2026 property-tax

Page 4

T

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

RESPONDENT TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS’ ENTIRE TRIBUNAL ANSWER 

TO PETITION 

 

Respondent, Township of Columbus (“Respondent” or “Township”), by and 

through its undersigned counsel, answers Petitioner Statewide Meskill LLC’s Petition as 

follows: 

1. 

In answer to paragraph 1, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations 

concerning Petitioner’s principal-office address and party-in-interest status because 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth 

and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent admits that the Petition identifies 

parcel numbers 74-16-009-3001-002 and 74-16-009-2003-000 as the parcels at issue. 

Respondent denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. 

2. 

In answer to paragraph 2, Respondent admits that it is the local assessing and tax-

collecting unit for real property located within its jurisdiction, including the parcels at

Page 2

issue, subject to applicable law. Respondent denies all remaining allegations not 

expressly admitted. 

3. 

In answer to paragraph 3, Respondent admits that the 2026 Board of Review 

records reflect taxable values and assessed values of $145,000 for parcel 74-16-009-

3001-002 and $235,000 for parcel 74-16-009-2003-000. Respondent denies all remaining 

allegations, including any characterization of the assessment process, state equalization, 

and legal effect of the asserted values that is inconsistent with applicable law and the 

complete assessment record. 

4. 

In answer to paragraph 4, Respondent admits that its 2026 assessment records 

classify parcel 74-16-009-3001-002 as agricultural-vacant and parcel 74-16-009-2003-

000 as agricultural-improved. Respondent denies that the parcels are commercial 

property to the extent Petitioner alleges a classification different from the Township’s 

2026 records. Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s alleged belief concerning 

the design or intended use of the parcels because Respondent lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth and therefore leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

5. 

In answer to paragraph 5, Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to raise 

issues relating to valuation, assessment, taxable value, and uniformity. Respondent denies 

that Petitioner is entitled to relief on any asserted issue and denies all remaining 

allegations not expressly admitted. 

6. 

In answer to paragraph 6, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein. 

Answering further, Respondent states that Petitioner has not identified the alleged loss,

Page 3

the factual basis for the claimed loss, the calculation at issue, or a statutory basis for 

relief. 

7. 

In answer to paragraph 7 and its subparagraphs, Respondent denies the allegations 

contained therein and further states that the allegations call for legal conclusions. 

Answering further, Respondent denies that the 2026 assessment, assessed value, state 

equalized value, taxable value, or taxes levied on the parcels are invalid, unlawful, 

discriminatory,

Page 4

value, or

Page 5

D.

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-001113

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Respondent

Files

Document Type: Motion to Set Aside Default

Attachment File Name: Motion to Set aside default

Document Type: Response to Order - Answer

Attachment File Name: Answer to Petition

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 50.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 50.00

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________________ 

RESPONDENT TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS’ ENTIRE TRIBUNAL ANSWER 

TO PETITION 

 

Respondent, Township of Columbus (“Respondent” or “Township”), by and 

through its undersigned counsel, answers Petitioner Statewide Meskill LLC’s Petition as 

follows: 

1. 

In answer to paragraph 1, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations 

concerning Petitioner’s principal-office address and party-in-interest status because 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to their truth 

and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent admits that the Petition identifies 

parcel numbers 74-16-009-3001-002 and 74-16-009-2003-000 as the parcels at issue. 

Respondent denies all remaining allegations not expressly admitted. 

2. 

In answer to paragraph 2, Respondent admits that it is the local assessing and tax-

collecting unit for real property located within its jurisdiction, including the parcels at

Page 2

issue, subject to applicable law. Respondent denies all remaining allegations not 

expressly admitted. 

3. 

In answer to paragraph 3, Respondent admits that the 2026 Board of Review 

records reflect taxable values and assessed values of $145,000 for parcel 74-16-009-

3001-002 and $235,000 for parcel 74-16-009-2003-000. Respondent denies all remaining 

allegations, including any characterization of the assessment process, state equalization, 

and legal effect of the asserted values that is inconsistent with applicable law and the 

complete assessment record. 

4. 

In answer to paragraph 4, Respondent admits that its 2026 assessment records 

classify parcel 74-16-009-3001-002 as agricultural-vacant and parcel 74-16-009-2003-

000 as agricultural-improved. Respondent denies that the parcels are commercial 

property to the extent Petitioner alleges a classification different from the Township’s 

2026 records. Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s alleged belief concerning 

the design or intended use of the parcels because Respondent lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to its truth and therefore leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

5. 

In answer to paragraph 5, Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to raise 

issues relating to valuation, assessment, taxable value, and uniformity. Respondent denies 

that Petitioner is entitled to relief on any asserted issue and denies all remaining 

allegations not expressly admitted. 

6. 

In answer to paragraph 6, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein. 

Answering further, Respondent states that Petitioner has not identified the alleged loss,

Page 3

the factual basis for the claimed loss, the calculation at issue, or a statutory basis for 

relief. 

7. 

In answer to paragraph 7 and its subparagraphs, Respondent denies the allegations 

contained therein and further states that the allegations call for legal conclusions. 

Answering further, Respondent denies that the 2026 assessment, assessed value, state 

equalized value, taxable value, or taxes levied on the parcels are invalid, unlawful, 

discriminatory,

Page 4

value, or

Page 5

D.

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001113

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

Township Of Columbus (SAINT CLAIR)

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

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

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Paul

M.I.

B.

Last Name

Addis

Firm Name (if any)

Addis Law Firm, PLLC

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

18 1st St

City or Town

Mount Clemens

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48043

Telephone Number

5864344800

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

paddis@theaddislawfirm.com

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Paul B. Addis

/s/

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Statewide Meskill LLC,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001113

Township Of Columbus,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Respondent filed a Small Claims answer and this case is pending in the Entire Tribunal. 

As such, Respondent must file and serve an Entire Tribunal answer and file proof 

demonstrating service of the answer within 14 days of the entry of this order. See TTR 

235 and 227. Tribunal rules and information on Entire Tribunal answers can be found 

on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent 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.1 

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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: August 25, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-001113

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 provided 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

Statewide Meskill LLC,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001113

Township Of Columbus,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Respondent filed a Small Claims answer

Page 4

MTT

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AUG 1 92026 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ~~ 

MARLON I BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / UNCAPPING 

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001113 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

Unit of Government 

Columbus Township 

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

1732 Bauman rd 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

Columbus Twp 

MI 

48063 

Telephone Number: 5 86-72 7-2 0 55 

Email Address {do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): 

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

First Name: 

M.l.: 

: 

Last Name: 

Sestilio 

Cianferra 

Firm Name (if any): 

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

1732 Bauman RD 

. 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Cade: 

Columbus Twp 

Ml 

148063 

Tetephone Number: 5 8 6-72 7-2 0 5 5 

Email Address {do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

[ves 

#4 No 

[J] Notapplicable 

If no, list all parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. Attacha 

separate sheet if necessary. 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more for all tax years at issue?

Page 2

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

Prgpariss 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

339,900 

Parcel # 74-16-009-002 was purchased by the petitioner for 281,438. The property 

uncapped for 2026 then it was adjusted by MBOR to 145,000. 

Parcel # 74-16-009-000 was purchased by the petitioner for 437,500. The properrty 

uncapped for 2026 then it was adjusted by MBOR to 235,000. It was recently sold for 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

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

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 

March 

[IH] July 

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

Yes 

[No 

0 December 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) atissue, did it have authority? J Yes 

[i] No 

If yes, explain 

Was the assessment at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [J ves 

No 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

Yes 

No 

If so, what is the issue date? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE 

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

Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? 

New purchase 

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

Parcel Numberi 4 _16-009-3001-002 74-16-009-2003-000 

Classification of Property: 

Reat{] 

Personal [J {check one} 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA

Page 3

03/30/2026 09:36 AM 

2026 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION 

FROM 

COLUMBUS TOWNSHIP 

1732 BAUMAN RD 

COLUMBUS, MI 48063 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address 

and fegel description optional.): 

74-16-009-3001-002 

WEBER RD 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC 

PO BOX 480485 

NEW HAVEN MI 48048 

. 

E{/20FWI/20FW I/20FSE1/4& W I/20FE 120F W112 

OF SE

Page 4

0

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

Vv. 

MTT Docket # 26-001113 

TOWNSHIP OF COLUMBUS, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

) 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF OAKLAND) 

Aaron M. Fales, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on August Z 

, 2026 he served a copy 

of Petitioner's Petition on the parties named on the attached list. 

Aaron. Fales

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I, BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Statewide Meskill LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 26-001113 

Township Of Columbus, 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER 

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case. 

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default. 

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules. 

By: Tribunal Clerk 

Entered: July 21, 2026 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| 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

Page 3

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

Columbus Township Assessor 

1732 Bauman Road 

Columbus, Mi 48063 

Columbus Township Clerk 

1732 Bauman Road 

Columbus, MI 48063 

AND BY FIRST CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

St. Clair County Equalization 

201 McMorran Blvd. Room 1100 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

St. Clair County Clerk 

201 McMorran Blvd. Room 1100 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

Richmond Community Schools 

Secretary of the School Board 

35276 Division Rd. 

Richmond, Ml 48062 

State Treasurer 

Michigan Department of Treasury 

Treasury Building 

430 W. Allegan St. 

Lansing, Mi 48922

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket # 

 26-001113 

vs. 

Parcel No. 74-16-009-3001-002 & 

COLOMBUS TOWNSHIP, 

74-16-009-2003-000 

Respondent. 

/ 

PETITION 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Law Office of 

Aaron M, Fales, P.C., says: 

1. 

Petitioner's principal 

office address 

is PO 

Box 480485, New Haven, 

Ml 

48048. 

Petitioner 

is 

a 

party 

in 

interest

Page 5

$23

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

Docket Number: 26-001113

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition

Attachment File Name: Meskill - POS

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

COLOMBUS TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

/

 

 

 

MTT Docket #24- 

Parcel No. 74-16-009-3001-002 & 

 74-16-009-2003-000 

 

 

 

PETITION 

 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Law Office of 

Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: 

1. 

Petitioner's principal office address is PO Box 480485, New Haven, MI 

48048. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on 

contiguous real property tax parcel nos. 74-16-009-3001-002 & 74-16-009-2003-

000 ("Petitioner's Property"), at 9224 Weder Rd., Columbus, MI, 48063. 

 

2. 

Respondent, Columbus Township assesses and collects property 

taxes on Petitioner's Property. 

 

3. 

 In 2026, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Parcel # 74-16-009-3001-002 to be $145,000 and assessed Petitioner's Property at 

$145,000 resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the 

tenative equalization factor and determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Parcel # 74-16-009-2003-000 to be $235,000 and assessed Petitioner's Property at

Page 2

$235,000 resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the 

tenative equalization factor. 

 

4. 

Petitioner's Property is classified as Agricultural Real Property. 

Petitioner's Property is commercial property. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was designed to be used as a commercial purposes. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, 

(c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that 

there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 

 

7. 

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable 

value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the 

taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible 

under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

 

 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state 

equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash

Page 3

value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, 

and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and, 

 

 

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an 

Order reducing the 2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel # 74-16-009-3001-

002 from $145,000 to $45,000, and reducing the 2026 assessed and state 

equalized values of Petitioner's Property from $145,000 to $45,000 and reducing 

the 2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel # 74-16-009-2003-000 from $235,000 

to $100,000, and reducing the 2026 assessed

Page 4

03/

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MTT DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: 

Organization 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Statewide Meskill LLC

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

PO Box 480485

City or Town

New Haven

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48048

Telephone Number

2487679840

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

afaleslaw@gmail.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Aaron

M.I.

Last Name

Fales

Firm Name (if any)

Law Office of Aaron M Fales, P.C.

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

330 Hamilton Row

Suite 350

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

248-767-9840

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

afaleslaw@gmail.com

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

2

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

9224 Weber Rd.

Columbus Township

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48063

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Columbus (SAINT CLAIR) 

County

Saint Clair

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

(*If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.)

Yes

 

 

Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values

Uncapping of Taxable Value

If “Other”, please explain:

 

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

74-16-009-2003-000

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Agricultural (check one)

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

235000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

235000

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

200000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

100000

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

100000

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

74-16-009-3001-002

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Agricultural (check one)

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

145000

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

145000

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

90000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

45000

If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention

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

Statewide Meskill LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-001113

Township Of Columbus, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: July 21, 2026

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 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

COLOMBUS TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

/

 

 

 

MTT Docket #24- 

Parcel No. 74-16-009-3001-002 & 

 74-16-009-2003-000 

 

 

 

PETITION 

 

 

STATEWIDE MESKILL LLC (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Law Office of 

Aaron M. Fales, P.C., says: 

1. 

Petitioner's principal office address is PO Box 480485, New Haven, MI 

48048. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on 

contiguous real property tax parcel nos. 74-16-009-3001-002 & 74-16-009-2003-

000 ("Petitioner's Property"), at 9224 Weder Rd., Columbus, MI, 48063. 

 

2. 

Respondent, Columbus Township assesses and collects property 

taxes on Petitioner's Property. 

 

3. 

 In 2026, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Parcel # 74-16-009-3001-002 to be $145,000 and assessed Petitioner's Property at 

$145,000 resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the 

tenative equalization factor and determined the taxable value of Petitioner's 

Parcel # 74-16-009-2003-000 to be $235,000 and assessed Petitioner's Property at

Page 2

$235,000 resulting in a state equalized value of the same amount based on the 

tenative equalization factor. 

 

4. 

Petitioner's Property is classified as Agricultural Real Property. 

Petitioner's Property is commercial property. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was designed to be used as a commercial purposes. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, 

(c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. 

 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that 

there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. 

 

7. 

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable 

value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the 

taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

 

 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible 

under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

 

 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state 

equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash

Page 3

value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, 

and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and, 

 

 

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or 

taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, 

discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to 

uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an 

Order reducing the 2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel # 74-16-009-3001-

002 from $145,000 to $45,000, and reducing the 2026 assessed and state 

equalized values of Petitioner's Property from $145,000 to $45,000 and reducing 

the 2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Parcel # 74-16-009-2003-000 from $235,000 

to $100,000, and reducing the 2026 assessed

Page 4

03/

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

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MTT DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: 

Organization 

Local Unit of Government

First Name

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Statewide Meskill LLC

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

PO Box 480485

City or Town

New Haven

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48048

Telephone Number

2487679840

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

afaleslaw@gmail.com

 

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Aaron

M.I.

Last Name

Fales

Firm Name (if any)

Law Office of Aaron M Fales, P.C.

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

330 Hamilton Row

Suite 350

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

248-767-9840

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

afaleslaw@gmail.com

 

Section 3: Issue 

Please designate one: 

Valuation 

 

Section 4: Subject Property Information 

How many parcels are you 

appealing?

2

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

9224 Weber Rd.

Columbus Township

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48063

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Columbus (SAINT CLAIR) 

County

Saint Clair

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

(*If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.)

Yes

 

 

Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Values

Uncapping of Taxable Value

If “Other”, please explain:

 

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

74-16-009-2003-000

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Agricultural (check one)

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

235000

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

235000

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

200000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

100000

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

100000

 

Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

74-16-009-3001-002

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Agricultural (check one)

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

145000

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

145000

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

90000

Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value).

45000

If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention

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.