Tocu, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Watertown, 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 

Tocu, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002624 

 

Watertown Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

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, 2020, through June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, 

(ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after 

December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 

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

 

1 See MCL 211.27a. 

2 See MCL 205.755.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002624 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

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

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

8.66%, and (ix) 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: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

Entered: March 25, 2026 

jcr 

 

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

RECEIVED 

TranInfosde0s D6104723-1 

03/20/26 

WAR 9 4 2026 

Cd: 

1915 

Aut: $50.00 

I: 

POLTER LAW GROUP 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

TOCU 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

v 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002624 

Twp Watertown (Sanilac) 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

(VALUATION) 

1] 

1. The subject property is in Sanilac 

County. 

2. 

Parcel Number: 240-009-200-010-04 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Stipulation 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

3. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board 

of Review are: 

Tax year 

Assessed Value (AV) 

| Taxable Value (TV) 

2025 

304,400 

283,215 

4. The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Tax year 

True Cash Value 

AV 

TV 

2025 

466000 

233000 

233000 

5. 

If the stipulated TV does not equal the prior year TV multiplied by the applicable 

inflation rate multiplier, explain why (e.g., transfer of ownership, additions, losses, 

omitted property etc.)

Page 2

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002624 

Page 2 of 2 

of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page If necessary): 

All refunds to be made payable jointly to Petitioner and "Polter Law” (Rep). and 

mailed to: Polter Law, 2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, Mi 48084. 

NOTE: The Stipulation MUST include ALL parcels and ALL tax years included in the 

appeal (including subsequent tax years on or after April 

1 of each year for appeals 

pending in the Small Claims Division). The parties may agree, however, to withdraw the 

appeal of specific parcels and/or tax year(s). 

IF APPLICABLE, complete the following section(s). Otherwise, LEAVE BLANK. 

7. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of parcel number: 

(If more than one parcel is being withdrawn, attach a separate page addressing 

all other parcels being withdrawn.) 

8. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of tax year(s) 

Sighatyre of Petitioner's Authorized pgp 

Petitioner: 

= 

Printed Name: _Stephen Polter 

Date: March 15, 2026 

Signature of Respondent's authorized representative: 

hn 2 

Printed Name:Michael Homier and or Thomas Dillon, Resp Counsel (Foster, Swift) 

Date: 

March 16, 2026

Page 3

S5y10-1SHId 

JW 35V150d SN 

ovL'0% 

33 

08y NOY 

LER t2z0008290 

rh 

LY 

TRY WESC dv Bh 

08 TW XI4OM 13 

78081 IW 

0011 @4s 

| 4oApag 

dnougy mp7 ssjjoq 

J115IVIddV XVI ALE

\V.il

hh

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

RECEIVED 

TranInfosde0s D6104723-1 

03/20/26 

WAR 9 4 2026 

Cd: 

1915 

Aut: $50.00 

I: 

POLTER LAW GROUP 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

ORLENE HAWKS 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

TOCU 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

v 

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002624 

Twp Watertown (Sanilac) 

Respondent. 

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

(VALUATION) 

1] 

1. The subject property is in Sanilac 

County. 

2. 

Parcel Number: 240-009-200-010-04 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Stipulation 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

3. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board 

of Review are: 

Tax year 

Assessed Value (AV) 

| Taxable Value (TV) 

2025 

304,400 

283,215 

4. The values for the property identified above as stipulated by the parties for 

settlement purposes are: 

Tax year 

True Cash Value 

AV 

TV 

2025 

466000 

233000 

233000 

5. 

If the stipulated TV does not equal the prior year TV multiplied by the applicable 

inflation rate multiplier, explain why (e.g., transfer of ownership, additions, losses, 

omitted property etc.)

Page 2

MOAHR Docket No. 25-002624 

Page 2 of 2 

of the refund, the waiver of interest, etc. (attach additional page If necessary): 

All refunds to be made payable jointly to Petitioner and "Polter Law” (Rep). and 

mailed to: Polter Law, 2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, Mi 48084. 

NOTE: The Stipulation MUST include ALL parcels and ALL tax years included in the 

appeal (including subsequent tax years on or after April 

1 of each year for appeals 

pending in the Small Claims Division). The parties may agree, however, to withdraw the 

appeal of specific parcels and/or tax year(s). 

IF APPLICABLE, complete the following section(s). Otherwise, LEAVE BLANK. 

7. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of parcel number: 

(If more than one parcel is being withdrawn, attach a separate page addressing 

all other parcels being withdrawn.) 

8. 

The parties agree to the withdrawal of tax year(s) 

Sighatyre of Petitioner's Authorized pgp 

Petitioner: 

= 

Printed Name: _Stephen Polter 

Date: March 15, 2026 

Signature of Respondent's authorized representative: 

hn 2 

Printed Name:Michael Homier and or Thomas Dillon, Resp Counsel (Foster, Swift) 

Date: 

March 16, 2026

Page 3

S5y10-1SHId 

JW 35V150d SN 

ovL'0% 

33 

08y NOY 

LER t2z0008290 

rh 

LY 

TRY WESC dv Bh 

08 TW XI4OM 13 

78081 IW 

0011 @4s 

| 4oApag 

dnougy mp7 ssjjoq 

J115IVIddV XVI ALE

\V.il

hh

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 SEPTEMBER 16 - 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Tocu,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

Township Of Watertown,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-002624

Please be advised that 25-002624 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing September 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. 25-002624

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 May 20, 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 May 20, 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 

May 20, 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 

September 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: October 16, 2025

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002624

Page 3 of 3

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized

Page 4

STATE OF

Page 5

M

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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

TOCU, 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002624 

Petitioner, 

PPN: 240-009-200-010-04 

v 

TOWNSHIP OF WATERTOWN 

Respondent. 

Stephen Polter (P72591) 

Michael D. Homier (P60318) 

PoLTER LAW Group, PC 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

Attorneys 

for Petitioner 

FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. 

2600 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite L100 

Attorneys 

for Respondent 

Troy, MI 48084 

1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 

(248) 213-6800 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

(616) 726-2258 

mhomier@fosterswift.com 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

On August 19, 2025, 

I served a copy of Respondent Township of Watertown’s Answer 

and Affirmative Defenses to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, along with a copy of this 

Proof of Service, upon the parties of record at their last known business address, by first class U.S. 

mail, postage prepaid. 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and 

belief. 

Date: 

August 19, 2025 

Chinen, 

Tyn | R. Folkema — Legal Assistant 

88397:00002:201832929-1

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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

TOCU, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

TOWNSHIP OF WATERTOWN 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002624 

 

PPN: 240-009-200-010-04 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephen Polter (P72591) 

POLTER LAW GROUP, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2600 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

 

 

Michael D. Homier (P60318) 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

mhomier@fosterswift.com 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

 

 

RESPONDENT WATERTOWN TOWNSHIP’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE 

DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

 

Respondent, Watertown Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & 

Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 

1. 

The Property Parcel Number of the Property is 240-009-200-010-04. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1. 

 

2. 

The property identified above is Real property. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2. 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous?

Page 2

ANSWER: 

Paragraph 3 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal? 

ANSWER: 

Paragraph 4 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property 

statements filed by parcel number? 

ANSWER: 

Paragraph 5 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 Comm. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Petition. 

 7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to 

Respondent’s __ March __ July __ December Board of Review. 

ANSWER: Paragraph 7 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

8. 

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or 

assessments at issue: 

ANSWER: 

Paragraph 8 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue, list the separate and specific facts upon 

which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at 

issue: 

ANSWER: 

Paragraph 9 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located in Sanilac County. The property or 

properties’ address is: 625 S Sandusky, Sandusky MI. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Petition.

Page 3

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local 

government unit): Sandusky/Watertown Twp. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits that Watertown Township established the assessment at 

issue. 

12. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

C/O TFI 

1146 E Big Beaver 

Troy, MI 48084 

 

ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition and, therefore, neither admits 

nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

13. 

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

taxable values. 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 

13 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

14. 

The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Petition. 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or 

years. 

 ANSWER: Paragraph 15 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 

16. 

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

of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

608,800 

304,400 

283,215 

 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Petition.

Page 4

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

450,000 

225,000 

225,000 

 

ANSWER: 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition as 

untrue and erroneous. 

 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

158,800 

79,400 

58,215 

 

 

ANSWER: 

Respondent denies the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition as 

untrue as the values alleged by Petitioner in paragraph 17 are inaccurate. 

 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief: Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV 

to more reflect these accurate figures based on comps, condition, income, vacancy, etc. 

ANSWER: 

Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested for the reason that Petitioner’s

Page 5

action

Page 6

W

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. 25-002624

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

Township Of Watertown (SANILAC)

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

Tom

M.I.

Last Name

Dillon

Firm Name (if any)

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

1700 E Beltline NE, Ste 200

City or Town

Grand Rapids

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49525

Telephone Number

616-726-2258

Fax Number

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

tdillon@fosterswift.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Thomas K. Dillon

/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

RECEIVED 

ser 

JUL 292025 

Re 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

TOCU 

; 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.25-002624 

Twp Watertown 

; 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

*To be filed after the Tribunal issues the Notice of Docket Number* 

Stephen Polter 

states that on July 27.2025 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Petition relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the following entities] 

1. Assessor (via certified mail): 

12803 S Wacousta Rd 

Grand Ledge, MI 48837 

2. 

City Clerk or Township Supervisor/Clerk (via certified mail): 

9405 Foster Rd, Fostoria, MI 48435 

3. 

County Equalization Director (via first class mail or personal service): 

100 E State Street Suite 1200 St. Johns, MI 48879 

4. 

County Clerk (via first class mail or personal service): 

100 E State Street Suite 2600. St. Johns, MI 48879 

5. 

Secretary of the local school board (via first class mail or personal service): 

9405 Foster, POB 39 

Fostoria MI 48435 

6. 

State Treasurer (via first class mail): 

Michigan Depart

Page 2

Polter Lad Cre -EFTR 

sessed 

IRC 

: 

a 

a ASAE 

—- 

A 

<_ 

ew

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

RECEIVED 

JUN 02 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

TOCU 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Sandusky/Watertwon Twp. 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 240-009-200-010-04 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is 

Xx real ___ personal. 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- 

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___ Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as 201Comm

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

8. 

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal's authority over the 

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which 

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or 

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located in Sanilac 

~~ 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

625 S Sandusky 

Sandusky MI 

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable 

local governmental unit): Sandusky/Watertown Twp 

12. 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

C/O TFI 

1146 E Big Beaver 

Troy, MI 48084 

13. 

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): 

X 

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes __ No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 

Page 3 of 4 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior 

tax year or vears (attach additional page if necessary): 

16. 

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

Board of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

608,800 

304,400 

283,215 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

450,000 

225,000 

225,000 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

158,800 

79,400 

58,215 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV to more reflect these accurate figures based on comps, 

condition, income, vacancy, etc.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 4 of 4 

Q PRI 

br's 

uthorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

A» 

NETOE 

AIA 

Al 

Wa 

FB 

Stephen Polter 

Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, MI 48084 

Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 

Date: May 25, 2025

Page 5

May 27, 2025 

RECEIVED 

MAY: 80 205 

f= = 

f FAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLL 

A division of Polter Law Group 

2nd Floot Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2407 N. Grand River Avenue 

Lansing, Michigan 48906 

Re: 

Multiple 2025 PTA 

To whom it may concern, 

This mailing contains sixty-three (“63”) commercial property tax appeals/petitions and one 

(“1”) multi (2) contiguous residential appeal/ petition, along with the requisite filing fees, as follows: 

SXM LLC v Hadley Twp. (multi — 2) Res., along with 2 checks (#1345-46) for 

$125 ea. 

CCCU v Muskegon/Fruitpott, along with 2 checks; one (#1320) for $250, one 

(#1393) for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Commetce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) 

fot $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Notton Shores, along with 1 check (#1319) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Sandusky, along with 1 check (#1317) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Owosso, along with 1 check (#1318) in the amount of $250. 

W Investors v FH, along with 1 check (#1378) in the amount of $400. 

Rite Aid Cotp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 

1 check (#1336) in the amount of 

$400. 

Warten Manor v Watren, along with 2 checks; one (#1311) for $600, one (#1390) 

for $25 (totaling $625 — contiguous multi (2)). 

2Changs v N'Ville, along with 2 checks; one (#1350) for $250, one (#1389) for 

$150 (totaling $400). 

’ 

5016 Greenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. 

Springfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331)

Page 6

X

Page 7

JR

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

Tocu, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-002624

Township Of Watertown, 

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: July 8, 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

RECEIVED 

JUN 02 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

TOCU 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

MTT Docket No. 

City of Sandusky/Watertwon Twp. 

Respondent(s) 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 240-009-200-010-04 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

2. 

The property identified above is 

Xx real ___ personal. 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- 

contiguous parcel.) 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___ Yes ___ No. 

(If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as 201Comm

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 

Page 2 of 4 

8. 

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal's authority over the 

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 

of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which 

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or 

assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located in Sanilac 

~~ 

County. The 

property or properties’ address is: 

625 S Sandusky 

Sandusky MI 

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable 

local governmental unit): Sandusky/Watertown Twp 

12. 

Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 

C/O TFI 

1146 E Big Beaver 

Troy, MI 48084 

13. 

This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): 

X 

the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values 

the property or properties’ taxable value only 

If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a 

dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ___ Yes __ No 

uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 

Page 3 of 4 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior 

tax year or vears (attach additional page if necessary): 

16. 

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

Board of Review are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

608,800 

304,400 

283,215 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

450,000 

225,000 

225,000 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

158,800 

79,400 

58,215 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): 

Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV to more reflect these accurate figures based on comps, 

condition, income, vacancy, etc.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 

Page 4 of 4 

Q PRI 

br's 

uthorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: 

A» 

NETOE 

AIA 

Al 

Wa 

FB 

Stephen Polter 

Email Address: spolter@polterlaw.com 

Mailing Address: 

2600 W Big Beaver, Ste L100, Troy, MI 48084 

Telephone Number: 248-213-6800 

Date: May 25, 2025

Page 5

May 27, 2025 

RECEIVED 

MAY: 80 205 

f= = 

f FAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

EXPRESS PROPERTY TAX APPEALS LLL 

A division of Polter Law Group 

2nd Floot Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2407 N. Grand River Avenue 

Lansing, Michigan 48906 

Re: 

Multiple 2025 PTA 

To whom it may concern, 

This mailing contains sixty-three (“63”) commercial property tax appeals/petitions and one 

(“1”) multi (2) contiguous residential appeal/ petition, along with the requisite filing fees, as follows: 

SXM LLC v Hadley Twp. (multi — 2) Res., along with 2 checks (#1345-46) for 

$125 ea. 

CCCU v Muskegon/Fruitpott, along with 2 checks; one (#1320) for $250, one 

(#1393) for $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Commetce Twp., along with 2 checks; one (#1321) for $250, one (#1391) 

fot $150 (totaling $400). 

CCCU v Notton Shores, along with 1 check (#1319) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Sandusky, along with 1 check (#1317) in the amount of $250. 

TOCU v Owosso, along with 1 check (#1318) in the amount of $250. 

W Investors v FH, along with 1 check (#1378) in the amount of $400. 

Rite Aid Cotp (Lewis) v Pinckney, along with 

1 check (#1336) in the amount of 

$400. 

Warten Manor v Watren, along with 2 checks; one (#1311) for $600, one (#1390) 

for $25 (totaling $625 — contiguous multi (2)). 

2Changs v N'Ville, along with 2 checks; one (#1350) for $250, one (#1389) for 

$150 (totaling $400). 

’ 

5016 Greenfield v Richfield, along with 1 check (#1330) in the amount of $250. 

Springfield v. Hampton, along with 1 check (#1331)

Page 6

X

Page 7

JR

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.