The Kroger Co, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Bedford, 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

The Kroger Co, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-001994

Township Of Bedford,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that the parties have filed a 

Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: August 17, 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

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

The Kroger Co, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-001994

Township Of Bedford,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that the parties have filed a 

Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: August 17, 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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

The Kroger Co, 

MTT Docket No. 25-001994-TT 

 

Petitioner, 

Parcel No(s). 02-030-132-05 

v 

Township Of Bedford, 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________/ 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 596-3260, ext. 2404

(917) 488-7825

msilvey@dmainc.com

amorse@dmainc.com

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

______________________________/ 

JOINT STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

Petitioner and Respondent stipulate to the dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and 

without costs or fees to either party. 

______________________________ 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

Dated: August 10, 2026 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Dated: August 11, 2026 

______________________________ 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan - w/permission (AM)

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: 25-001994

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

Party Filing Document 

Joint

Files

Document Type: Motion to Withdraw Appeal

Attachment File Name: Joint Stipulation to Dismiss - 25-001994 - Fully Executed

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

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 DECEMBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

The Kroger Co,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

Township Of Bedford,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-001994

Please be advised that 25-001994 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing December 16, 2026. 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. 25-001994

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 August 19, 2026. 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 August 19, 2026. 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 

August 19, 2026, 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 

December 16, 2026, 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: January 16, 2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-001994

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

Page 4

STATE

Page 5

MT

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 

 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BEDFORD TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001994 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN, 

& ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 

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 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent, Bedford Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

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. 

4. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5.

Page 2

2

6. 

Respondent admits no protest was made but neither admits nor denies the necessity 

of such a protest as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 

9. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9. 

10. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

11. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 11 but denies 

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

12. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s identification of the 2025 tax year as being 

at issue but denies any issue with the identified tax year. 

13. 

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

of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$15,008,498 

$7,504,249 

$7,036,575 

14. 

Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are as 

follows: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$15,008,498 

$7,504,249 

$7,036,575 

15. 

The values in dispute are as follows: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$0 

$0 

$0 

16. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 16, including subparagraphs (a)-

(d), for the reason that the same are 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

Page 3

3

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 non-discriminatory and 

constitutional. 

17. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in 

the above Paragraphs. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Bedford Township, requests the Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, 

and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

/s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

Dated: October 7, 2025 

 

 

 

(258) 731-3089 

 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, Bedford Township, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

1. 

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

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

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).

Page 4

4

3. 

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). 

4. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error 

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

its agents. 

5. 

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject 

property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in 

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 

6. 

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was 

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the 

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 

7. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen

Page 5

5

12.

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 - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 25-001994

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

Township Of Bedford (MONROE)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax 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

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Assocaites, P.C.

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Kelsea M. Melcher

/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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

The Kroger Co. 

) 

) 

Petitioner, 

) 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-001994-TT 

) 

Bedford Township, 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent. 

) 

PROOF 

OF SERVICE 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 9th day of 

September 2025 she served a copy of the Petition upon the following persons by placing 

same in an envelope properly addressed to each via USPS first class thereon: 

Monroe County Clerk 

BEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Annamarie Osment 

Griffin Kirsch 

- School Board Secretary 

106 E First Street 

1135 Smith Road 

Monroe, MI 48161 

Temperance MI48182 

Michigan State Treasurer 

Monroe County Equalization Director 

Department of Treasury 

Michael Woolford 

Treasury Building 

51 S Macomb 

430 West Allegan 

Monroe, MI 48161 

Lansing, MI 48922 

i 

SQ 

Mice (0 

o) 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

The Kroger Co. 

) 

) 

) 

Petitioner, 

) 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-001994-TT 

) 

Bedford Township, 

) 

) 

) 

Respondent. 

) 

PROOF 

OF SERVICE 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 9th day of 

September 2025 she served a copy of the Petition upon the following persons by placing 

same in an envelope properly addressed to each via certified mail thereon: 

Township of Bedford Assessor 

Township of Bedford Supervisor 

8100 Jackman Rd 

Al Prieur 

Temperance, MI 48182 

8100 Jackman Rd 

Temperance, MI 48182 

Township of Bedford Clerk 

Trudy L. Hershberger 

8100 Jackman Rd 

Temperance, MI 48182 

Mictas (0 Doge 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

The Kroger Co. 

5 

MTT Docket No. 25-001994 

 -TT 

Petitioner, 

v 

Bedford Township 

i 

Respondent. 

g 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467-ofc 

(917) 488-7825-mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: 02-030-132-05 

2. 

The property identified above is real 

. 

3. 

Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the 

subject of this appeal.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-001994 

TT 

Page 2 of 3 

5. 

The property identitied above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved 

6. 

The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December 

Board of Review as a protest was not required. 

7. 

The property or properties at issue are in Monroe 

County. 

8. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

3462 W Sterns Rd, Lambertville, MI 48144 

9. 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: Bedford Township 

10. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 

11. This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties true cash and taxable 

values and uniformity. 

12. The tax year at issue is: 2025. 

13. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2025 Board 

of Review are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$15,008,498 

$7,504,249 

$7,277,932 

14. Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$9,356,000 

$4,678,000 

$4,678,000 

15. The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$5,652,498 

$2,826,249 

$2,599,932

Page 5

MTT Docket No. 25-001994 

TT 

Page 3 of 3 

16. The 2025 assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and 

collected are invalid because: 

(a) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount 

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher 

percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(c) The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and 

(d) The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case 

and enter an order reducing the 2025 true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct 

Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and 

costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under 

the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May 30, 2025 

By: 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Petitioner's Representative

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 TAX TRIBUNAL 

The Kroger Co. 

N 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

v 

Bedford Township 

R 

Respondent. 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467-ofc 

(917) 488-7825-mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: 02-030-132-05 

2. 

The property identified above is real 

. 

3. 

Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the 

subject of this appeal.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25- 

-TT 

Page 2 of 3 

S. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved 

The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December 

Board of Review as a protest was not required. 

The property or properties at issue are in Monroe 

County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

3462 W Sterns Rd, Lambertville, MI 48144 

The assessments) at issue were established by the: Bedford Township 

Petitioners legal residence or principal office address is: 

1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 

This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable 

values and uniformity. 

The tax year at issue is: 2025. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2025 Board 

of Review are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$15,008,498 

$7,504,249 

$7,277,932 

Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$9,356,000 

$4,678,000 

$4,678,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$5,652,498 

$2,826,249 

$2,599,932

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 2-___BBB___-TT 

Page 3 of 3 

 The 202assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and

collected are invalid because:

D The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

E The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher

percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and

applicable statutes;

F The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and

G The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case 

and enter an order reducing the 202true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct 

Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and 

costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under 

the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May ___, 202

By: 

______________________________ 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Petitioner’s Representative 

30

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

The Kroger Co, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-001994

Township Of Bedford, 

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 5, 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 TAX TRIBUNAL 

The Kroger Co. 

N 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

v 

Bedford Township 

R 

Respondent. 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467-ofc 

(917) 488-7825-mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No.: 02-030-132-05 

2. 

The property identified above is real 

. 

3. 

Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the 

subject of this appeal.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25- 

-TT 

Page 2 of 3 

S. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved 

The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December 

Board of Review as a protest was not required. 

The property or properties at issue are in Monroe 

County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

3462 W Sterns Rd, Lambertville, MI 48144 

The assessments) at issue were established by the: Bedford Township 

Petitioners legal residence or principal office address is: 

1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 

This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable 

values and uniformity. 

The tax year at issue is: 2025. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2025 Board 

of Review are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$15,008,498 

$7,504,249 

$7,277,932 

Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2025 are no more than the following: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$9,356,000 

$4,678,000 

$4,678,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$5,652,498 

$2,826,249 

$2,599,932

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 2-___BBB___-TT 

Page 3 of 3 

 The 202assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and

collected are invalid because:

D The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes;

E The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher

percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and

applicable statutes;

F The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and

G The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this honorable Tribunal hear this case 

and enter an order reducing the 202true cash, state equalized and taxable values and direct 

Respondent to refund to Petitioner any excess taxes, fees, and penalties paid, plus interest and 

costs, and all other relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law and as is appropriate under 

the circumstances. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Dated: May ___, 202

By: 

______________________________ 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Petitioner’s Representative 

30

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

The Kroger Co.

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

1014 Vine Street

City or Town

Cincinnati

State

Ohio

ZIP Code

45202

Telephone Number

917-488-7825

Fax Number

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

msilvey@dmainc.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Michelle (Mikki)

M.I.

M

Last Name

Silvey

Firm Name (if any)

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

9229 Delegates Row, Ste 375

City or Town

Indianapolis

State

Indiana

ZIP Code

46240

Telephone Number

317-596-3260

Fax Number

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

msilvey@dmainc.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?1

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

3462 W Sterns Rd

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Bedford (MONROE)

County

Monroe

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.)

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:

02-030-132-05

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

7504249

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

7277932

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

9356000

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

4678000

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?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

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.

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/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey

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.