Summit West Investments, LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Waterford, 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

Summit West Investments, LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No. 25-002200

Township Of Waterford,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

has filed a Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Petitioner’s motion was filed prior to the 

answer being filed. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 18, 2025

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 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Summit West Investments, LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No. 25-002200

Township Of Waterford,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

has filed a Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Petitioner’s motion was filed prior to the 

answer being filed. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: August 18, 2025

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, 

Respondent. 

 

 MTT Docket No. 25-002200 

 

 

 

BRIAN E. ETZEL (P54905) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

PLUNKETT, PC 

Attorney for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL 

Petitioner Summit West Investments, LLC, and Respondent Charter Township of 

Waterford, by and through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate the withdrawal of this appeal 

without costs or fees to any party. 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 & PLUNKETT PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Brian E. Etzel 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Laura M. Hallahan (with consent) 

 Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

 

 

 Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

 Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 Attorney for Respondent 

 

Dated: August 15, 2025 

 

 

 

Dated: August 15, 2025

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

1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

Parcels W-13-25-200-028 & 

W-13-25-200-029 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. 

 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

bee@wwrplaw.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

 

Petitioner SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire Tribunal Property Tax 

Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC is a domestic limited liability 

company with its registered offices located at 263 Pine Ridge Drive, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 

48304.

Page 2

2 

2. 

Respondent Charter Township of Waterford is a Michigan municipal corporation 

with its offices located at 5200 Civic Center Drive, Waterford, Michigan 48329. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns three (3) contiguous parcels identified as follows (the “Subject 

Property”): 

Tax Year 

Commonly Known As 

Parcel ID 

2025 

2440 Elizabeth Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48328 

W-13-25-200-028 

2025 

2446 Elizabeth Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48328 

W-13-25-200-029 

2025 

2270 Elizabeth Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48328 

W-13-25-200-019 

 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Oakland County and is within the Waterford 

School District. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the 

Subject Property. 

The 2025 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as commercial 

real property. 

7. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment 

for property taxes as follows: 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel ID 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

W-13-25-200-028 

 5,134,500 

 2,567,250 

 1,114,510 

2025 

W-13-25-200-029 

 471,820 

 235,910 

 179,070 

2025 

W-13-25-200-019 

 256,020 

 128,010 

 58,420 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2025 

tax year cannot exceed the following amounts:

Page 3

3 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel ID 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

W-13-25-200-028 

 1,100,000 

 550,000 

 550,000 

2025 

W-13-25-200-029 

 200,000 

 100,000 

 100,000 

2025 

W-13-25-200-019 

 80,000 

 40,000 

 40,000 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel ID 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

W-13-25-200-028 

 4,034,500 

 2,017,250 

 564,510 

2025 

W-13-25-200-029 

 271,820 

 135,910 

 79,070 

2025 

W-13-25-200-019 

 176,020 

 88,010 

 18,420 

 

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for 

assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out 

of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), 

defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues involving losses should information 

supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the 

GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based 

on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment is not 

uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject 

Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal enter 

judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment to amounts that do not exceed the values 

set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled 

under Michigan law.

Page 4

4 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: 

/s/ Brian E. Etzel 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

Dated: June 2, 2025 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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

Summit West Investments, LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002200

Township Of Waterford, 

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: August 15, 2025

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

1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

Parcels W-13-25-200-028 & 

W-13-25-200-029 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. 

 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

bee@wwrplaw.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

 

Petitioner SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire Tribunal Property Tax 

Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC is a domestic limited liability 

company with its registered offices located at 263 Pine Ridge Drive, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 

48304.

Page 2

2 

2. 

Respondent Charter Township of Waterford is a Michigan municipal corporation 

with its offices located at 5200 Civic Center Drive, Waterford, Michigan 48329. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns three (3) contiguous parcels identified as follows (the “Subject 

Property”): 

Tax Year 

Commonly Known As 

Parcel ID 

2025 

2440 Elizabeth Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48328 

W-13-25-200-028 

2025 

2446 Elizabeth Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48328 

W-13-25-200-029 

2025 

2270 Elizabeth Lake Road, Waterford, Michigan 48328 

W-13-25-200-019 

 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Oakland County and is within the Waterford 

School District. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the 

Subject Property. 

The 2025 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as commercial 

real property. 

7. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment 

for property taxes as follows: 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel ID 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

W-13-25-200-028 

 5,134,500 

 2,567,250 

 1,114,510 

2025 

W-13-25-200-029 

 471,820 

 235,910 

 179,070 

2025 

W-13-25-200-019 

 256,020 

 128,010 

 58,420 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2025 

tax year cannot exceed the following amounts:

Page 3

3 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel ID 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

W-13-25-200-028 

 1,100,000 

 550,000 

 550,000 

2025 

W-13-25-200-029 

 200,000 

 100,000 

 100,000 

2025 

W-13-25-200-019 

 80,000 

 40,000 

 40,000 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel ID 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

W-13-25-200-028 

 4,034,500 

 2,017,250 

 564,510 

2025 

W-13-25-200-029 

 271,820 

 135,910 

 79,070 

2025 

W-13-25-200-019 

 176,020 

 88,010 

 18,420 

 

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for 

assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out 

of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), 

defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues involving losses should information 

supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the 

GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based 

on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment is not 

uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject 

Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal enter 

judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment to amounts that do not exceed the values 

set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other relief to which it is entitled 

under Michigan law.

Page 4

4 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS WILLIAMS RATTNER 

 

 

 

 

 

& PLUNKETT PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: 

/s/ Brian E. Etzel 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brian E. Etzel (P54905) 

Dated: June 2, 2025 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

SUMMIT WEST INVESTMENTS, LLC

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

263 Pine Ridge Drive

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48304

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

Fax Number

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

beetzel@wwrplaw.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Brian

M.I.

E

Last Name

Etzel

Firm Name (if any)

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

380 N Old Woodward Ave

Suite 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

Fax Number

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

beetzel@wwrplaw.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?3

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

2440 Elizabeth Lake Road

Waterford

Michigan

48328

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Waterford (OAKLAND)

County

Oakland

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

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

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

W-13-25-200-028

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

2567250

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

1114510

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

1100000

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

550000

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

Parcel Number:

W-13-25-200-029

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

235910

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

179070

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.

Parcel Number:

W-13-25-200-019

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

128010

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

58420

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

80000

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

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

40000

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

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification? 

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest 

State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Brian E. Etzel

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.