The Kroger Co Of Michigan, Petitioner Vs. City Of Roseville, 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 of Michigan, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011 

 

City of Roseville, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the Stipulation and finds that it comports with the mandates 

of State law.1 As a result, the Tribunal shall enter the parties’ Stipulation. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment including all 

attachments, terms and conditions is GRANTED and ADOPTED, unless otherwise 

indicated. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the tax years at issue shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be 

corrected to reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values as provided in this 

Consent Judgment within 20 days of the entry of the Consent Judgment.2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund as 

required by the Consent Judgment within 28 days of the entry of the Consent 

Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall, unless otherwise indicated, include a 

proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and of penalty and 

interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also, unless otherwise indicated, 

separately indicate the amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being 

refunded. A sum determined by the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall, unless 

otherwise indicated, bear interest from the date of payment to the date of judgment and 

the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A sum determined by the 

Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any time period prior to 28 

days after the issuance of this Consent Judgment. Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest 

shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2013, through June 30, 2016, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2016, through December 31, 2016, at the rate of 4.40%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2016, through June 30, 2017, at the rate of 4.50%, (iv) after June 30, 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002011 

Page 2 of 2 

 

2017, through December 31, 2017, at the rate of 4.70%, (v) after December 31, 2017, 

through June 30, 2018, at the rate of 5.15%, (vi) after June 30, 2018, through December 

31, 2018, at the rate of 5.41%, (vii) after December 31, 2018, through June 30, 2019, at 

the rate of 5.9%, (viii) after June 30, 2019, through December 31, 2019, at the rate of 

6.39%, (ix) after December 31, 2019, through June 30, 2020, at the rate of 6.40%, (x) 

after June 30 2020, through December 31, 2020, at the rate of 5.63%, (xi) after 

December 31, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (xii) after June 30, 

2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (xiii) after December 31, 2022, 

through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (xiv) after June 30, 2023, through 

December 31, 2023, at the rate of 8.25%, (xv) after December 31, 2023, through June 

30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, (xvi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at 

the rate of 9.50%, (xvii) after December 31, 2024, through June 30, 2025, at the rate of 

9.47%, (xviii) after June 30, 2025, through December 31, 2025, at the rate of 8.66%, 

and (xix) after December 31, 2025, through June 30, 2026, at a rate of 8.48%. 

 

This Consent Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

See docket look up for a copy of stipulation and for any possible refund paragraph. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: March 20, 2026 

jc 

 

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 of Michigan, 

Petitioner, 

v 

City Of Roseville, 

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 

/ 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011-TT 

Parcel No(s). 

08-14-03-354-002 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT IN THE FULL TRIBUNAL 

1. 

This case is pending in the Entire Tribunal. 

2. 

The subject property is in Macomb County. 

(95) 

Board of Review are: 

. 

The values for the property at issue in this appeal as established by Respondent’s 

Tax 

Parcel(s) 

Year 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

08-14-03-354-002 

$8,924,800 

$4,462,400 

$4,441,720

Page 2

4. 

The values for the property at issue in this appeal as agreed upon by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Tax 

Parcel(s) 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

08-14-03-354-002 

$6,854,950 

$3,427,475 

$3.427.475 

5. 

This stipulation addresses the 2025 tax year. 

6. 

Petitioner waives interest on the refund. 

7. 

Refunds (as warranted) should be made payable to “The Kroger Co of Michigan” and 

mailed to the attention of’ 

The Kroger Co of Michigan 

c/o Alex Morse 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

Respectfully submitted, 

a 

pg 

Alex Morse 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

February 12, 2026 

Februanst Zs 2026 

Page 2 of 2 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011-TT 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

PIN: 08-14-03-354-002

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 of Michigan, 

Petitioner, 

v 

City Of Roseville, 

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 

/ 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011-TT 

Parcel No(s). 

08-14-03-354-002 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT IN THE FULL TRIBUNAL 

1. 

This case is pending in the Entire Tribunal. 

2. 

The subject property is in Macomb County. 

(95) 

Board of Review are: 

. 

The values for the property at issue in this appeal as established by Respondent’s 

Tax 

Parcel(s) 

Year 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

08-14-03-354-002 

$8,924,800 

$4,462,400 

$4,441,720

Page 2

4. 

The values for the property at issue in this appeal as agreed upon by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Tax 

Parcel(s) 

True Cash 

Assessed 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

08-14-03-354-002 

$6,854,950 

$3,427,475 

$3.427.475 

5. 

This stipulation addresses the 2025 tax year. 

6. 

Petitioner waives interest on the refund. 

7. 

Refunds (as warranted) should be made payable to “The Kroger Co of Michigan” and 

mailed to the attention of’ 

The Kroger Co of Michigan 

c/o Alex Morse 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

Respectfully submitted, 

a 

pg 

Alex Morse 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

Attorneys for Respondent 

February 12, 2026 

Februanst Zs 2026 

Page 2 of 2 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011-TT 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

PIN: 08-14-03-354-002

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 of Michigan,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Roseville,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002011

Please be advised that 25-002011 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. 25-002011

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. 25-002011

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

Page 4

STATE OF

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011 

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, 

Respondent. 

MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

ALEX MORSE 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Representatives for Petitioner 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Clinton Township, MI 

48036 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(586) 263-5050 

(317) 689-6467 — ofc 

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com 

(917) 488-7825 — mobile 

msilvey(@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) 

NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, York, Dolan 

& Tomlinson, P.C., and in answer to Petitioner's Petition, states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits paragraph 3. 

4. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient 

information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 

5. 

Respondent admits paragraph 5. 

6. 

Respondent admits paragraph 6. 

7. 

Respondent admits paragraph 7.

Page 2

8. 

Respondent admits paragraph 8. 

9. 

Respondent admits paragraph 9. 

10. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient 

information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 

11. 

Respondent denies paragraph 11 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

12. 

Respondent admits paragraph 12. 

13. 

Respondent admits paragraph 13. 

14. 

Defendant denies paragraph 14 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

15. 

Defendant denies paragraph 15 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

16. 

Defendant denies paragraph 16, including (a) thru (d), because it is untrue, 

leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees 

wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Road, Ste. 205 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

i 

Tho undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was 

Clinton Twp., MI 48036 

2 

ell parties tothe above cause to each of the 

ys 

(586) 263-5050 

Jd 

es disclosed SA 

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com 

Z 

Dated: October 8, 2025

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner, 

VS. 

CITY OF ROSEVILEL, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011 

MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. 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 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 

Clinton Township, MI 

48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com 

RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, York, 

Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and for its Affirmative Defenses, states as follows: 

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. 

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

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

the Respondent. 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property 

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

Page 4

10. 

properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 

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

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

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

the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and 

also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support is allegations that that 

the property’s taxable value is improper. 

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was 

applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all 

others to arrive at the respective equalized assessments. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal 

preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed 

in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. 

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

state equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a 

cause of action. 

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

intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s 

otherwise equitable tax burden. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional 

requirements.

Page 5

11. 

Respondent reserves the right to add 

to these Affirmative Defenses any new 

Affirmative

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. 25-002011

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Roseville (MACOMB)

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

Timothy

M.I.

D

Last Name

Tomlinson

Firm Name (if any)

York, Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C.

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

22600 Hall Rd

Ste 205

City or Town

Clinton Twp

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48036

Telephone Number

586-263-5050

Fax Number

586-263-4763

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

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Timothy D. Tomlinson

/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. OF MICHIGAN. 

) 

) 

) 

Petitioner, 

) 

MTT DOCKET NO.25-002011-TT 

) 

City of Roseville, 

) 

) 

) 

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: 

Macomb County Clerk 

Roseville School Board Secretary 

Anthony G. Forlini 

Joseph DeFelice 

40 N Main Street 

18975 Church Street 

Mount Clemens, MI 48043 

Roseville, MI 48066 

Michigan State Treasurer 

Macomb County Equalization Director 

Department of Treasury 

Kristen Sieloff 

Treasury Building 

1 S Main, 6th Floor 

430 West Allegan 

Mount Clemens, MI 48043 

Lansing, MI 48922 

Mice (0 Dor 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN. 

Petitioner, 

MTT DOCKET NO.25-002011-TT 

City of Roseville, 

Respondent. 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the Sth 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: 

City of Roseville Assessor 

Brook Openshaw 

29777 Gratiot Avenue 

Roseville MI 48066 

City of Roseville Clerk 

Jennifer Zelmanski 

29777 Gratiot Avenue 

Roseville MI 48066 

ici 

(lp & 

Mics (0 

o) 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

MTT Docket No. 25-002011 

 -TT 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Roseville 

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.: 08-14-03-354-002 

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. 25-002011 

TT 

Page 2 of 3 

5. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13 

14. 

15. 

The properly identified above is classified as 201 Commereial-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 Macomb 

County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

20891 13 Mile Rd, Roseville, MI 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: City of Roseville 

Petitioner’s 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 

$8,924,800 

$4,462,400 

$4,441,720 

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 

$6,250,000 

$3,125,000 

$3,125,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$2,674,800 

$1,337,400 

$1,316,720

Page 5

MTT Docket No. 25-002011 

 -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. 

Mico ro) 

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. OF MICHIGAN, 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Roseville 

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.: 08-14-03-354-002 

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 Macomb 

County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

20891 13 Mile Rd, Roseville, MI 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: City of Roseville 

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 

$8,924,800 

$4,462,400 

$4,441,720 

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 

$6,250,000 

$3,125,000 

$3,125,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$2,674,800 

$1,337,400 

$1,316,720

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 of Michigan, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002011

City Of Roseville, 

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 6, 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. OF MICHIGAN, 

MTT Docket No. 25- 

Petitioner, 

v 

City of Roseville 

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.: 08-14-03-354-002 

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 Macomb 

County. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

20891 13 Mile Rd, Roseville, MI 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: City of Roseville 

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 

$8,924,800 

$4,462,400 

$4,441,720 

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 

$6,250,000 

$3,125,000 

$3,125,000 

The values in contention for tax year 2025 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2025 

$2,674,800 

$1,337,400 

$1,316,720

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. OF MICHIGAN

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]

20891 13 Mile Rd

Michigan

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Roseville (MACOMB)

County

Macomb

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:

08-14-03-354-002

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

4462400

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

4441720

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

6250000

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

3125000

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.