The Kroger Co Of Michigan Petitioner Vs. Township Of White Lake 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. 26-001432 

 

White Lake Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and the submitted Stipulation for Entry 

of Consent Judgment (Stipulation) and finds that the Stipulation meets all filing and 

statutory requirements.1 As such, the Tribunal shall enter the 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 

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-001432 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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, 

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%, 

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

July 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026, at a rate of 7.85%. 

 

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. 

 

 

Entered: September 29, 2026 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Grinnell_ 

gc 

 

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. 26-001432-TT 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No(s). 12-22-301-014 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

Township Of White Lake, 

 

 

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 

amorse@dmainc.com 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

Matthew C. Wayne (P80542) 

Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, 

P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 

(248) 489-4100 

mwayne@rsjalaw.com 

jromer@rsjalaw.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 Oakland County. 

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

Board of Review are: 

 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel(s) 

True Cash 

Value 

Assessed 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2026 

12-22-301-014 

$10,464,100 

$5,232,050 

$5,232,050

Page 2

Page 2 of 2 

MTT Docket No. 26-001432-TT 

Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment 

PIN: 12-22-301-014 

 

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

settlement purposes are: 

 

Tax 

Year 

Parcel(s) 

True Cash 

Value 

Assessed 

Value 

Taxable 

Value 

2026 

12-22-301-014 

$7,836,000 

$3,918,000 

$3,918,000 

 

5. This stipulation addresses the 2026 tax year. 

6. Petitioner waives interest on the refund if paid within 60 days from entry of the 

consent judgment. 

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, 

 

______________________________ 

 

Alex Morse 

DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

 

______________________________ 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, 

P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 September 9, 2025 

September 9, 2025 

 

 

/s/: Jeremy J. Romer

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-001432

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

Party Filing Document 

Joint

Files

Document Type: Stip for Consent Judgment

Attachment File Name: Stipulation - 26-001432 - 10951 Highland Rd - Fully Executed 9-9-2026

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 50.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 50.00

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001432 

v. 

 

TOWNSHIP OF WHITE LAKE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

DuCHARME, McMILLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

Gopi P. Patel (P77727) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive 

Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 

(248) 489-4100 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

gpatel@rsjalaw.com 

 

 

 

Respondent's Answer to Petition 

 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Township of White Lake, by and through its Attorneys, 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Answer to Petitioner's 

Petition, states as follows: 

 

1. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

2. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same.

Page 2

2 

 

3. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

4. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

5. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

6. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

7. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

8. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

9. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

10. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

11. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs.

Page 3

3 

 

12. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

13. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same. 

14. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

15. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

16. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 and its subparts of the 

Petition, Respondent denies the same as untrue. 

17. 

Respondent further states the ratio of the average level of assessment in 

relation to true cash value in the assessment district is 50%, and the equalization factor was 

uniformly applied in the assessment district for the year in question. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Township of White Lake, denies that Petitioner is 

entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and 

taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be 

dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so 

wrongfully sustained.

Page 4

4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Jeremy J. Romer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(248) 489-4100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

Dated: September 10, 2026

Page 5

5 

 

Affirmative Defenses 

 

 

For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, 

Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 

 

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

Respondent. 

 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode

Page 6

6

Page 7

7

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-001432

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

Township Of White Lake (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

Jeremy

M.I.

J

Last Name

Romer

Firm Name (if any)

Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C.

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

27555 Executive Drive

Suite 250

City or Town

Farmington Hills

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48331

Telephone Number

2484894100

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

jromer@rsjalaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Jeremy J. Romer

/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. 26-26-001432-TT 

White Lake Township, 

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 

Huron Valley Schools 

Oakland County Clerk 

Denise Pistana, School Board Secretary 

1200 North Telegraph Road, Dept. #415 

2368 S. Milford Rd 

Pontiac, MI 48341 

Highland, MI 48357 

Micheal R. Lohmeier 

Michigan State Treasurer 

Oakland County Equalization Director 

Department of Treasury 

250 Elizabeth Lake Rd 

Treasury Building 

Suite 1000 W 

430 West Allegan 

Pontiac, MI 48341 

Lansing, MI 48922 

Micte (@ Fo) 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Authorized Agent

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN. 

Petitioner, 

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-26-001432-TT 

White Lake Township, 

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: 

David Hieber 

Rik Kowall 

White Lake Township Assessor 

White Lake Township Supervisor 

7525 Highland Rd. 

7525 Highland Rd. 

White Lake, MI 48383 

White Lake, MI 48383 

Anthony L. Noble 

White Lake Township Clerk 

7525 Highland Rd. 

White Lake, MI 48383 

Mica 

((o & 

Ca (0 ) 

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. 26-26-001432-TT 

Petitioner, 

v 

White Lake Township 

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.: 12-22-301-014 

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. 26-001432-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. 

Oakland 

7. 

The property or properties at issue are in 

County. 

8. 

The property or properties’ address is: 

10951 Highland Rd, White Lake, MI 48386-2152 

9. 

The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: White Lake 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: 2026. 

13. 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 

$10,464,100 

$5,232,050 

$5,232,050 

14. 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 

$5,600,000 

$2,800,000 

$2,800,000 

15. The values in contention for tax year 2026 are: 

Tax 

True Cash 

State Equalized 

Taxable 

Year 

Value 

Value 

Value 

2026 

$4,864,100 

$2,432,050 

$2,432,050

Page 5

MTT Docket No. 26-001432-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 capalize and/or taxable value, is at a higher 

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

applicable statutes; 

(¢) 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. 

Mick (lo Els 

Dated: May 

26 

2026 

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

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: 26-001432

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 - WHITE LAKE TOWNSHIP 26-001432 POS

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

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

White Lake Township

12-22-301-014

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 

 10951 Highland Rd, White Lake, MI 48386-2152

White Lake Township

 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202

$10,464,100

$5,232,050

$5,232,050

$5,600,000

$2,800,000

$2,800,000

$4,864,100

$2,432,050

$2,432,050

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.

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]

10951 Highland Rd

White Lake

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48386

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of White Lake (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:

12-22-301-014

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:

5232050

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

5232050

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

5600000

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

2800000

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

2800000

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: 26052686952929

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.

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.: 26-001432

Township Of White Lake, 

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.

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

White Lake Township

12-22-301-014

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 

 10951 Highland Rd, White Lake, MI 48386-2152

White Lake Township

 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202

$10,464,100

$5,232,050

$5,232,050

$5,600,000

$2,800,000

$2,800,000

$4,864,100

$2,432,050

$2,432,050

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.

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]

10951 Highland Rd

White Lake

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48386

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of White Lake (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:

12-22-301-014

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:

5232050

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

5232050

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

5600000

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

2800000

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

2800000

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: 26052686952929

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.