Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield, 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

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-001853

City Of Southfield,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that the parties 

have filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: January 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-001853

City Of Southfield,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that the parties 

have filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: January 8, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 3

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

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-001853

City Of Southfield,

Respondent.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that the parties 

have filed a Joint Motion to Withdraw the appeal. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: January 8, 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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Uptown 11 Townhouses, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001853 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002 

 

v. 

 

City of Southfield, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O'Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 

202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL 

 

 

Petitioner, Uptown 11 Townhouses, LLC, and Respondent, City of Southfield, 

by and through their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate to a withdrawal of this 

appeal without costs or fees to any party. 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

By: s/ Jerome P. Pesick 

 

By: /s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

 Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: January 8, 2026

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

NOTICE OF DECEMBER 1 - 14, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER 

OF PROCEDURE

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City Of Southfield,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 25-001853

Please be advised that 25-001853 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing December 01, 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. 25-001853

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties 

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being 

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure 

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures 

by August 4, 2026. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence 

unless disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though 

admissible) except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing 

Statements by August 4, 2026. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will 

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the 

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding 

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in 

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

August 4, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel 

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that 

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating 

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted 

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on 

December 1, 2026, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to 

Compel have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged 

by that date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s 

valuation disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified 

on the opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain 

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date 

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this 

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one 

week before they are scheduled to appear. 

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: January 2, 2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-001853

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 representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

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

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

NOTICE OF DECEMBER 1 - 14, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER

Page 5

MT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Southfield, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001853 

Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

JEROME P. PESICK (P29039) 

JASON C. LONG (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

PLUNKETT, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

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 Southfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

The Parties 

1. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

 

The Subject Property 

 

3. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations 

contained in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 2

2

4. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4. 

 

5. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 

 

The 2025 Assessment 

 

6. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

 

7. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

 

8. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s contention of value but denies that it reflects 

the property’s fair market value as of December 31, 2024. In further answer, the assessed, state 

equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of 

true cash value 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. 

 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute in the subject 

property’s valuation but denies Petitioner’s contentions of value have merit and further denies 

Petitioner is entitled to relief. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values 

do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value 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. 

 

10. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner but denies that those 

issues have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to relief. Respondent admits there is no issue 

relative to an addition or loss but denies Petitioner has a right to raise any additional claims at a 

later date. 

 

11. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 11, including subparagraphs (a)-

(d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or 

taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value 

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. 

 

12. 

Respondent admits the subject property’s assessment is uniform but denies it 

overestimated the subject property’s value. 

 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

 

13. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons set forth above.

Page 3

3

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Southfield, 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: August 26, 2025 

 

 

 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, City of Southfield, 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). 

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.

Page 4

4

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

Page 5

5

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. 25-001853

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City Of Southfield (OAKLAND)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

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

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

M

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates, P.C.

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3087

Fax Number

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

MTT@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Kelsea M. Melcher

/s/

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

Page 1

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC,

Petitioner,

v.

City of Southfield,

Respondent.

Proof of Service of Petition and Notice of Docket Number

lof2

02007694

Docket No. 25-001853

Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039)

Jason C. Long (P59244)

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER

& PLUNKETT, PC

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300

Birmingham, MI 48009

(248) 642-0333

Attorneysfor Petitioner

Page 2

Proof of Service of Petition and Notice of Docket Number

Monica Athanas states that she personally served copies of the Entire Tribunal

Property Tax Petition, the Notice of Docket Number, and this Proof of Service, on the

persons listed below, by the means identified below, by placing those documents in

duly stamped, addressed envelopes, and placing the envelopes in the United States

mail on July 29, 2025.

PERSONS SERVED:

Certified Mail

First Class Mail

2 of 2

02007694

Clerk

Oakland County

1200 N Telegraph

Building #12E

Pontiac MI 48341

State Treasurer

Michigan Department of Treasury

Austin Building

430 W. Allegan

Lansing, MI

48922

Assessor

City of Southfield

26000 Evergreen Road

P.O. Box 2055

Southfield, MI 48037-2055

Director of Equalization

Oakland County

250 Elizabeth Lake Rd

Suite 1000W

Pontiac, MI 48341

Secretary of School Board

Southfield Public Schools

24661 Lahser Rd

Southfield MI 48033

Clerk

City of Southfield

26000 Evergreen Road

P.O. Box 2055

Southfield, MI 48037-2055

Monica Athanas

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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25- 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002 

 

v. 

 

City of Southfield, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

 

Petitioner Uptown 11 Townhouses, LLC, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire Tribunal 

Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Uptown 11 Townhouses, LLC is a Michigan limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in Michigan located at 29100 

Northwestern Highway, Suite 260, Southfield, MI 48034. 

2. 

Respondent City of Southfield is a Michigan city with its principal offices

Page 2

located at 26000 Evergreen Road, Southfield, MI 48076. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002 and 

commonly known as 26565 E Stanford Drive, Southfield, MI 48033 (the “Subject 

Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Oakland County and is within the 

Southfield Public School District. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes 

for the Subject Property. 

The 2025 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as 

commercial real property. 

7. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s 

assessment for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 10,553,340 

 5,276,670 

 5,117,677 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for 

the 2025 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 8,500,000 

 4,250,000 

 4,250,000 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 2,053,340 

 1,026,670 

 867,677

Page 3

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation 

for assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any 

issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 

211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves its rights to assert issues 

involving losses should information supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan 

Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles 

and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) 

otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment 

is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent 

overestimating the Subject Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal 

enter judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment to be consistent with 

the values set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other 

relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jerome P. Pesick 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Dated: May 30, 2025 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-001853

City Of Southfield, 

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 28, 2025

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25- 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002 

 

v. 

 

City of Southfield, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER 

& PLUNKETT, PC 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

 

 

Petitioner Uptown 11 Townhouses, LLC, by and through its attorneys, 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC, states as follows for its Entire Tribunal 

Property Tax Petition. 

The Parties 

1. 

Petitioner Uptown 11 Townhouses, LLC is a Michigan limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in Michigan located at 29100 

Northwestern Highway, Suite 260, Southfield, MI 48034. 

2. 

Respondent City of Southfield is a Michigan city with its principal offices

Page 2

located at 26000 Evergreen Road, Southfield, MI 48076. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 76-24-19-100-002 and 

commonly known as 26565 E Stanford Drive, Southfield, MI 48033 (the “Subject 

Property”). 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Oakland County and is within the 

Southfield Public School District. 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes 

for the Subject Property. 

The 2025 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as 

commercial real property. 

7. 

For the 2025 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s 

assessment for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 10,553,340 

 5,276,670 

 5,117,677 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for 

the 2025 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 8,500,000 

 4,250,000 

 4,250,000 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

 2,053,340 

 1,026,670 

 867,677

Page 3

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation 

for assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any 

issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 

211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves its rights to assert issues 

involving losses should information supporting such issues become available. 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2025 assessment (a) violates the Michigan 

Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles 

and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) 

otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment 

is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent 

overestimating the Subject Property’s values. 

Conclusion and Request for Relief 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal 

enter judgment revising the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment to be consistent with 

the values set forth in Paragraph 8 of this Petition and granting Petitioner all other 

relief to which it is entitled under Michigan law. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PLUNKETT, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jerome P. Pesick 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Dated: May 30, 2025 

 

 

Attorneys for Petitioner

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

Uptown 11 Townhouses LLC

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

29100 Northwestern Highway

Suite 260

City or Town

Southfield

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48034

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

Fax Number

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

jpesick@wwrplaw.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jerome

M.I.

P

Last Name

Pesick

Firm Name (if any)

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

380 N Old Woodward Ave

Suite 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

248-642-0333

Fax Number

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

jpesick@wwrplaw.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

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

26565 E Stanford Drive

Southfield

Michigan

48033

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Southfield (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.)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Values

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

76-24-19-100-002

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

5276670

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

5117677

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

8500000

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

4250000

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

Section 9: Assessment Information

Type of Tax Assessment(s):

Assessment Number(s):

Check all that is being appealed: 

Check what action prompted this appeal:

If “other,” please explain:

Section 10: Special Assessment Information

Type of Special Assessment:

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

If No, please explain:

Section 11: Classification Information

Parcel Number:

Current Classification of Property as established by Board of Review: 

What do you believe is the property’s classification?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

If improved property, how is the property currently being used?

If improved property, for what use was the property designed?

Fee Information

The filing fee is based on the greater of State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention. If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcel with the highest 

State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention will be used to determine your filing fee, plus $25.00 will be added for each additional parcel being appealed.

If the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: Your filing fee is:

 

 $100,000.00 and under $250.00

 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $400.00

 $Over $500,000.00 $600.00

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, not to exceed a total filing fee of $2,000.00.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of an Equalization Tax Appeal.

A fee of $250.00 is required for the filing of a Non-Property Tax Appeal.

A fee of $150.00 is required for the filing of a Classification Tax Appeal

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

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Jerome P. Pesick

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.