Record Finder / 26-001429-TT
Michigan
The Kroger Co Of Michigan Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak Respondent
- Petitioner
- The Kroger Co Of Michigan
- Respondent
- City Of Royal Oak
Case overview
- Docket number
- 26-001429-TT
- Status
- Answer Due
- CaseType
- ET Property
- Division
- ET
- County
- Oakland
- Judge
- No judge assigned
Docket history
| Line # | Subject | Filer | Line Ref | Enter Date/Post Mark | Fee | Related Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Answer was received | RESP | Not recorded | 10/06/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 4 | Proof of service of petition was received. | Not recorded | Not recorded | 09/08/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 3 | Petition has been verified | PET | 1 | 08/12/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
| 2 | Notice of Docket Number ET | Not recorded | Not recorded | 08/12/2026 | Not recorded | Download |
| 1 | A petition was received. | PET | Not recorded | 05/26/2026 | $600.00 | Download |
| Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Not recorded | Download |
Documents
Answer_Kroger RO_FINAL.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, v CITY OF ROYAL OAK, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001429 Parcel No. 72-25-14-126-010 _____________________________________________________________________________/ MICHELLE (MIKKI) M. SILVEY (P69494) ALEX MORSE CAMERON BECKNER 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, City of Royal Oak, 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.
Page 2
2 5. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 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 2026 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 2026 $14,195,440 $7,097,720 $6,853,000 14. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are as follows: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $14,195,440 $7,097,720 $6,853,000 15. The values in dispute are as follows: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $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
Page 3
3 taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are 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, City of Royal Oak, 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 6, 2026 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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 method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 8. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 9. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot
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.
EntireTribunalCaseISAnswer.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001429 Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information Filer Type: Local Unit of Government Local Unit of Government City Of Royal Oak (OAKLAND) First Name M.I. Last Name Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) City or Town State ZIP Code Telephone Number E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name Laura M.I. Last Name Hallahan Firm Name (if any) Hallahan & Associates PC 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 248-731-3089 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: /s/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.
SCANNED KROGER - CITY OF ROYAL OAK 26-001429.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN. ) Petitioner, ) MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001429-TT ) City of Royal Oak, ) ) ) Respondent. ) PROOF OF SERVICE Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 8" day of September 2026 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: Lisa Brown City of Royal Oak School District Oakland County Clerk Maryanne VanHaitsma, 1200 North Telegraph Road School Board Secretary Building 12E 800 DeVillen Pontiac, MI 48341 Royal Oak, MI 48073 Micheal R. Lohmeier Michigan State Treasurer Oakland County Equalization Director Department of Treasury 1200 N. Telegraph Road Treasury Building Pontiac, MI 48341 430 West Allegan Lansing, MI 48922 Micka (0 Shs Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Authorized Agent
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN. ) ) Petitioner, ) MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001429-TT ) City of Royal Oak, ) ) ) Respondent. ) PROOF OF SERVICE Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 8" day of September 2026 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: Anthony Switkowski City of Royal Oak Assessor 203 S Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Melanie Halas City of Royal Oak Clerk 203 S Troy Street Royal Oak, MI 48067 Mics (0 ve) 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. 26-001429-TT Petitioner, v City of Royal Oak Respondent. Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com cbeckner@dmainc.com ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: 72-25-14-126-010 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. 5. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 26-001429-TT Page 2 of 3 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The assessments) 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 Oakland County. The property or properties’ address is: 2200 E 12 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48067-1504 City of Royal Oak The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: 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: 2026. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2026 Board of Review are: Tax True Cash Assessed Taxable Year Value Value Value 2026 $14,195,440 $7,097,720 $6,853,000 Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2026 are no more than the following: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2026 $6,646,860 $3,323,430 $3,323,430 The values in contention for tax year 2026 are: Tax True Cash State Equalized Taxable Year Value Value Value 2026 $7,548,580 $3,774,290 $3,529,570
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 26-001429-TT Page 3 of 3 16. The 2026 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 2026 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. icis(0 & Mic (0 2) Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Petitioner's Representative Dated: May 26 2026 By:
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.
SubsequentFiling.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Docket Number: 26-001429 Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? No Party Filing Document Petitioner Files Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition Attachment File Name: SCANNED KROGER - CITY OF ROYAL OAK 26-001429 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.
Kroger - City of Royal Oak.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL __________________________________________, MTT Docket No. 26-_____BBB_-TT Petitioner, v __________________________________________, Respondent. ______________________________/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com cbeckner@dmainc.com ______________________________/ ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: ________________________________ 2. The property identified above is _________________. 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. 5. The property identified above is classified as ___________________________________. THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN City of Royal Oak 72-25-14-126-010 real 201 Commercial-Improved
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-______BBB-TT Page 2 of 3 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 ________________ County. 8. The property or properties’ address is: ______________________________________________________________________. 9. The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: _____________________________. 10. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: ______________________________________________________________________. 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: 2026. 13. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2026 Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 14. Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2026 are no more than the following: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 15. The values in contention for tax year 2026 are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 Oakland 2200 E 12 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48067-1504 City of Royal Oak 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 $14,195,440 $7,097,720 $6,853,000 $6,646,860 $3,323,430 $3,323,430 $7,548,580 $3,774,290 $3,529,570
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 26-_____BBB_-TT Page 3 of 3 16. The 2026 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 2026 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: __________ ___, 2026 By: ______________________________ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Petitioner’s Representative May 26
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.
EntireTribunalCaseISPetition.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner MTT DOCKET NO. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer type: Organization Local Unit of Government First Name M.I. Last Name/Company Name 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 9174887825 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) DuCharme, McMillen & Associates 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 917-488-7825 E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) msilvey@dmainc.com Section 3: Issue Please designate one: Valuation Section 4: Subject Property Information How many parcels are you appealing? 1 Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address] 2200 E 12 Mile Rd Royal Oak
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Michigan 48067 Taxing Authority (City or Township) City Of Royal Oak (OAKLAND) County Oakland 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.) N/A Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Values If “Other”, please explain: Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal Parcel Number: 72-25-14-126-010 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Commercial (check one) Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review: 7097720 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 6853000 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 6646860 Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 3323430 If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 3323430 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.
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 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 Payment Information Amount: 600 Success: True Message: "" Waiver Code: Transaction Number: 26052686949945 Supporting Waiver Documents:
These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.
ET_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2026-08-12_16-38-54.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 The Kroger Co Of Michigan, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No.: 26-001429 City Of Royal Oak, 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 12, 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.
Kroger - City of Royal Oak.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL __________________________________________, MTT Docket No. 26-_____BBB_-TT Petitioner, v __________________________________________, Respondent. ______________________________/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com cbeckner@dmainc.com ______________________________/ ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: ________________________________ 2. The property identified above is _________________. 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. 5. The property identified above is classified as ___________________________________. THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN City of Royal Oak 72-25-14-126-010 real 201 Commercial-Improved
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-______BBB-TT Page 2 of 3 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 ________________ County. 8. The property or properties’ address is: ______________________________________________________________________. 9. The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: _____________________________. 10. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: ______________________________________________________________________. 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: 2026. 13. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2026 Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 14. Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2026 are no more than the following: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 15. The values in contention for tax year 2026 are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 Oakland 2200 E 12 Mile Rd, Royal Oak, MI 48067-1504 City of Royal Oak 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 $14,195,440 $7,097,720 $6,853,000 $6,646,860 $3,323,430 $3,323,430 $7,548,580 $3,774,290 $3,529,570
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 26-_____BBB_-TT Page 3 of 3 16. The 2026 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 2026 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: __________ ___, 2026 By: ______________________________ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Petitioner’s Representative May 26
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.
EntireTribunalCaseISPetition.pdfRead complete document text →
Read document text excerpt
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner MTT DOCKET NO. Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information Filer type: Organization Local Unit of Government First Name M.I. Last Name/Company Name 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 9174887825 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) DuCharme, McMillen & Associates 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 917-488-7825 E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) msilvey@dmainc.com Section 3: Issue Please designate one: Valuation Section 4: Subject Property Information How many parcels are you appealing? 1 Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address] 2200 E 12 Mile Rd Royal Oak
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Michigan 48067 Taxing Authority (City or Township) City Of Royal Oak (OAKLAND) County Oakland 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.) N/A Section 5: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply) True Cash and Taxable Values If “Other”, please explain: Section 6: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal Parcel Number: 72-25-14-126-010 Classification of Property: Real (check one) Commercial (check one) Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review: 7097720 Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review: 6853000 What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? 6646860 Multiply the True Cash Value by 50% and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value). 3323430 If you belive the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. 3323430 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.
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR 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 Payment Information Amount: 600 Success: True Message: "" Waiver Code: Transaction Number: 26052686949945 Supporting Waiver Documents:
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.