Vincent Nystrom Petitioner V City Of Marquette 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 

Vincent Nystrom, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-002475 

 

City of Marquette, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On September 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal 

reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on September 17, 2026. In the 

motion, Petitioner states it did not received the 2026 notice of assessment until after the 

March Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner contends that the Michigan Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Township does not render the March BOR protest 

requirement absolute when an opportunity to protest was denied due to lack of notice.1 

Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Sixarp decision provided for an exception of 

jurisdictional protest requirements when there is a violation depriving a taxpayer of their 

ability to protest “the protest requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by 

the court if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the 

taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.”2 As such, the Tribunal should 

reinstate this matter to address the exception set forth in Sixarp and Petitioner’s 

unrebutted evidence regarding the lack of notice. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the 

Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the 

error was corrected.3 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because Petitioner failed to protest the assessment to Respondent’s 

March Board of Review. Despite Petitioner’s contention that it did not timely receive 

assessment notices and interpretation of Sixarp arguing that the protest requirement 

can be waived when there is a due-process violation that deprives a taxpayer of their 

right to protest, the provision of Sixarp cited by Petitioner actually reaffirms that the 

Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to assume jurisdiction in cases presenting 

potential due-process violations when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal 

 

1 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). 

2 Id. at 15. See Petitioner’s Exhibit A. 

3 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002475 

Page 2 of 2 

 

under MCL 205.735a have not been met, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only 

be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body with powers of equity.4 

 

The cited provision and following language indicate that the waiver of the jurisdictional 

protest requirements of MCL 205.735a to remedy a due process violation must come 

from the Court’s judicial power, and not from the Tribunal which lacks equitable 

authority to do so “[petitioner] must demonstrate that respondent deprived it of its right 

to constitutional due process to invoke this Court’s judicial power to waive the 

jurisdictional requirements.”5 Furthermore, the Sixarp decision overturned Parkview 

Memorial Association v City of Livonia,6 as cited by Petitioner and the prior Tribunal 

cases cited by Petitioner to support their contentions all pre-date the Sixarp decision 

and are thus not binding or persuasive in this matter. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

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

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be 

filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

Entered: October 16, 2026 

 

 

By: /s/ Joshua M. Wease 

cs 

 

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 

 

 

 

4 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 

Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v 

Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized 

by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

5 Sixarp, at 15. (Emphasis added.) 

6 Id. See also Parkview Memorial Assoc’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990).

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 

VINCENT NYSTROM, 

Docket No. 26-002475 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

Respondent. 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

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 

Proof of Service 

Jason C. Long states that he personally served copies of Petitioner's Motion for 

Reconsideration, Brief in Support, and this Proof of Service, on the persons listed 

below, by placing those documents in duly stamped, addressed envelopes, and placing 

the envelopes in the United States Mail on Wednesday, September 23, 2026. 

Persons served: 

Assessor 

Clerk 

City of Marquette 

City of Marquette 

300 W. Baraga Ave. 

300 W. Baraga Ave. 

Marquette, MI 49855 

Marquette, MI 49855 

J

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 

 

 

VINCENT NYSTROM, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-002475 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brief in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

Page 2

I. Introduction 

 

The Tribunal dismissed this appeal because Petitioner did not protest the 

subject property’s assessment to Respondent’s 2026 March Board of Review. 

Petitioner explained this fact when he filed his Petition. Materials submitted with 

the Petition also explained the reason that no protest occurred: Respondent’s notice 

of assessment identifying not only the amount of the assessment, but also the meeting 

dates for the March Board of Review, did not arrive until after the March Board of 

Review had closed. Two affidavits from owners of properties within the condominium 

complex where the subject property is located substantiated that notices for 

properties within that complex did not arrive in time to allow owners to protest. The 

Tribunal nevertheless entered an Order of Dismissal dismissing the petition, such 

that the appeal was over before it even started. 

To support the decision to dismiss, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, ___ Mich ___ (2025), attached as Exhibit A. 

Sixarp held that the board of review protest requirement is jurisdictional and that 

the Tribunal has no generalized equitable power to disregard it. But Sixarp also 

holds that the requirement may be waived when necessary to remedy a problem that 

deprived the taxpayer of the ability to protest in the first place. Id., slip op at 15. In 

reaching that holding, the Supreme Court preserved the central principle from 

Parkview Memorial Assoc’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990). By 

preserving that aspect of Parkview, the Supreme Court treated the timely notice

Page 3

received by the taxpayer in Sixarp as materially different from an absence of notice 

received in advance of the board of review meeting. 

With due respect, the Order of Dismissal applies Sixarp too broadly. The 

Order’s application of Sixarp does not account for the second part of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. Likewise, the Order does not address the unrebutted affidavits 

establishing that Petitioner had no notice of either the assessments or the Board’s 

meeting dates until it was already too late for Petitioner to protest. That omission is 

a palpable error that misled the Tribunal to an incorrect decision. Petitioner 

respectfully requests that the Tribunal reconsider the Order and reinstate the appeal. 

II. Statement of Facts 

 

Petitioner owns a condominium unit that is part of a 27-unit condo complex 

located in the City of Marquette. The subject property is classified as residential real 

property. For 2026, Respondent assessed the subject property as if its true cash value 

equaled $807,000. See Notice of Assessment, Exhibit B. That was significantly more 

than the price that Petitioner paid to purchase the subject property during December 

2025; the purchase price equaled $697,900. See Affidavit of Vincent Nystrom, 

Exhibit C ¶3. In addition to the amount of the subject property’s assessment, the 

notice also listed the meeting dates for the City of Marquette 2026 March Board of 

Review. Those dates were March 9 and 10, 2026. See Exhibit B. 

Petitioner did not learn of the assessment or the dates, however, until after the 

2026 March Board of Review had already closed. Petitioner attested that he did not 

receive the Notice of Assessment until late March 2026. It arrived at the subject

Page 4

property, which is Petitioner’s principal residence, and is the address where 

Respondent directed the Notice of Assessment. Petitioner attested that he regularly 

checks his mail, but he did not receive the notice before March 10, 2026. Exhibit C, 

¶¶6-8. He promptly submitted an appeal after receiving the notice, but Respondent 

told him that he would have to wait until next year. Exhibit C, ¶9; see also Protest 

letter, Exhibit D. 

The same thing happened to Chip Properties, LLC (“Chip Properties”), which 

developed the condo complex. John Foster, a member and the registered agent for 

Chip Properties first received the 2026 notices of assessment for Chip Properties’ 22 

condo unit parcels after the March Board of Review closed. See Affidavit of John 

Foster, Exhibit E, ¶12. Mr. Foster attested that he works at Chip Properties’ 

registered office on most business days, regularly receives Chip Properties’ mail at 

that office, and is the only person who receives or gathers Chip Properties’ mail. See 

Exhibit E, ¶¶4-9. He further attested that none of the notices arrived before March 

10, that no notice arrived by any other means, and that the mailed notices arrived 

only after March 10. See Exhibit E, ¶10-12. 

Petitioner submitted his Petition with attached Affidavits from both himself 

and Mr. Foster explaining these facts. On September 17, however, the Tribunal 

entered the Order of Dismissal. Respondent had not asked for the dismissal. In fact, 

it does not appear that Respondent was even provided a copy of the Petition before 

the

Page 5

Notice

Page 6

B.

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 

 

 

VINCENT NYSTROM, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-002475 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration 

 

 

Petitioner Vincent Nystrom moves this honorable Tribunal to grant 

reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Order of Dismissal dated September 17, 2026, and 

to reinstate Petitioner’s appeal, for the reasons explained in the Brief in Support of 

this Motion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Williams Williams Rattner 

 

 

 

 

 

 

& Plunkett, PC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Long 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 William E. Hosler (P41257) 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Dated: September 23, 2026 

 

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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Docket Number: 26-002475

Is this case currently pending in the Small Claims Division? Yes

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Motion for Reconsideration

Attachment File Name: motion for recosideration

Document Type: Documentation

Attachment File Name: motion for recosideration brief

Document Type: Proof of Service: Misc Documents

Attachment File Name: doc02397020260923112842

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

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

Vincent Nystrom, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 26-002475

City Of Marquette,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that:

Petitioner failed to protest the assessment to Respondent’s March Board of Review, as 

required by MCL 205.735a. As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable 

power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and deadlines, it has 

no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested. See Sixarp, LLC v Byron 

Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002475

Page 2 of 2

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm

Entered: September 17, 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

Vincent Nystrom, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

 MTT Docket No. 26-002475

City Of Marquette,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that:

Petitioner failed to protest the assessment to Respondent’s March Board of Review, as 

required by MCL 205.735a. As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable 

power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and deadlines, it has 

no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested. See Sixarp, LLC v Byron 

Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues and closes the case.

APPEAL RIGHTS

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal.

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

STAT

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 

CHIP PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Docket No. 26- 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

Respondent. 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

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 

Affidavit of Vincent Nystrom 

Vincent Nystrom, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 

1. 

I have personal knowledge 

of and am competent 

to 

testify 

to the 

matters stated in this Affidavit. 

2. 

I am the owner of property identified as 2401 N. Lakeshore Blvd., Unit 

A2, Marquette, Michigan 49855, which is tax parcel number 1510892 (the “Subject 

Property”).

Page 2

4. 

The Subject Property is my principal residence. 

5. 

The Subject Property is the mailing address that the City of Marquette 

maintains on file for me, including on file with the City of Marquette assessing 

office. This is reflected on documents including the Subject Property’s 2026 notice of 

assessment, a copy of which is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 1. 

6. 

I regularly receive mail through the United States Postal Service at 

the Subject Property, and I check the mail regularly. 

No other person receives mail 

for me at the Subject Property. 

7. 

To the best of my knowledge, 

I did not receive a notice of assessment 

for the Subject Property in the mail, delivered to the Subject Property, before March 

10, 2026. 

8. 

I recall receiving a notice of assessment for the Subject Property in the 

mail on a date in late March 2026. 

9. 

When 

I received the notice of assessment in the mail, 

I prepared an 

appeal dated April 1, 2026, and submitted that to the City. 

When I submitted the 

appeal to the City of Marquette, the City’s representatives advised that my next 

opportunity to appeal would be in March 2027. 

10. 

I did not have notice of the Subject Property's 2026 assessment in time 

to protest the assessment to the City of Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review.

Page 3

12. 

Accordingly, 

I could not have possibly timely appealed the Subject 

Property’s 2026 assessment to the City of Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review. 

Vincent Nystrom 

This Affidavit was signed and sworn before me on June a5 2026, by Vincent 

Nystrom. 

MONICA M.D 

Notary Public 

"MONIGA M. DINKO 

7] 

My Commission 

Expires Oct. 

Acting In the County pd 

S172 on va

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

1 of 3

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL

MTT DOCKET NO. 

Petitioner’s Contact Information:

Filer Type:

Individual

Local Unit of Government:

First Name

Vincent

M.I.

Last Name

Nystrom

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

c/o 380 N. Old Woodward Ave.

Ste. 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

E-mail Address

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information, if any:

First Name

Jason

M.I.

C.

Last Name

Long

Firm Name (if any)

Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC

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

2486420333

E-mail Address

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Subject Property Information:

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining?

*If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel

N/A 

Property Address (No., Street)

2401 Lakeshore Blvd.

Unit A2

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

2 of 3

City or Town

Marquette

County

Marquette

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49855

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Marquette (MARQUETTE)

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

True Cash and Taxable Values

 

Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal:

The subject property's assessment is based on an overestimation of its true cash value. The assessment therefore exceeds the limits set in Const 1963, art 9, 

section 3, and the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq.

Jurisdictional Issues:

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? No

If Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: 

If No, please check the applicable reason(s):

Assessment Change Notice was not properly sent to Petitioner

Year(s) Under Appeal:

2026

 

Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal:

Parcel Number:

1510892

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Residential (check one)

Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review:

403500

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

3 of 3

403500

What do you believe is the fair market value?

675000

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value.

337500

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

337500

 

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

Petitioner’s Signature: 

/s/ Jason C. Long

Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature:

/s/ 

Fee Information:

If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for 

the filing of this appeal.

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.

Property tax appeal: Residential** Non-Residential

SEV or TV in contention*

 

 Filing fee*** Filing Fee**

$100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A

More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A

Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

Yes

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

Vincent Nystrom,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-002475

City Of Marquette,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: September 17, 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

Vincent Nystrom,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-002475

City Of Marquette,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 281. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: September 17, 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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CHIP PROPERTIES, LLC, 

Docket No. 26- 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

Respondent. 

William E. Hosler (P41257) 

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 

Affidavit of Vincent Nystrom 

Vincent Nystrom, being first duly sworn, states as follows: 

1. 

I have personal knowledge 

of and am competent 

to 

testify 

to the 

matters stated in this Affidavit. 

2. 

I am the owner of property identified as 2401 N. Lakeshore Blvd., Unit 

A2, Marquette, Michigan 49855, which is tax parcel number 1510892 (the “Subject 

Property”).

Page 2

4. 

The Subject Property is my principal residence. 

5. 

The Subject Property is the mailing address that the City of Marquette 

maintains on file for me, including on file with the City of Marquette assessing 

office. This is reflected on documents including the Subject Property’s 2026 notice of 

assessment, a copy of which is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 1. 

6. 

I regularly receive mail through the United States Postal Service at 

the Subject Property, and I check the mail regularly. 

No other person receives mail 

for me at the Subject Property. 

7. 

To the best of my knowledge, 

I did not receive a notice of assessment 

for the Subject Property in the mail, delivered to the Subject Property, before March 

10, 2026. 

8. 

I recall receiving a notice of assessment for the Subject Property in the 

mail on a date in late March 2026. 

9. 

When 

I received the notice of assessment in the mail, 

I prepared an 

appeal dated April 1, 2026, and submitted that to the City. 

When I submitted the 

appeal to the City of Marquette, the City’s representatives advised that my next 

opportunity to appeal would be in March 2027. 

10. 

I did not have notice of the Subject Property's 2026 assessment in time 

to protest the assessment to the City of Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review.

Page 3

12. 

Accordingly, 

I could not have possibly timely appealed the Subject 

Property’s 2026 assessment to the City of Marquette’s 2026 March Board of Review. 

Vincent Nystrom 

This Affidavit was signed and sworn before me on June a5 2026, by Vincent 

Nystrom. 

MONICA M.D 

Notary Public 

"MONIGA M. DINKO 

7] 

My Commission 

Expires Oct. 

Acting In the County pd 

S172 on va

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

1 of 3

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

VALUATION / UNCAPPING APPEAL

MTT DOCKET NO. 

Petitioner’s Contact Information:

Filer Type:

Individual

Local Unit of Government:

First Name

Vincent

M.I.

Last Name

Nystrom

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

c/o 380 N. Old Woodward Ave.

Ste. 300

City or Town

Birmingham

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48009

Telephone Number

2486420333

E-mail Address

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information, if any:

First Name

Jason

M.I.

C.

Last Name

Long

Firm Name (if any)

Williams Williams Rattner & Plunkett, PC

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

2486420333

E-mail Address

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Subject Property Information:

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining?

*If no, you must file separate appeals for each parcel

N/A 

Property Address (No., Street)

2401 Lakeshore Blvd.

Unit A2

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

2 of 3

City or Town

Marquette

County

Marquette

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

49855

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Marquette (MARQUETTE)

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

True Cash and Taxable Values

 

Please Explain the Reason for this Appeal:

The subject property's assessment is based on an overestimation of its true cash value. The assessment therefore exceeds the limits set in Const 1963, art 9, 

section 3, and the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq.

Jurisdictional Issues:

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review? No

If Yes, check which Board of Review you attended: 

If No, please check the applicable reason(s):

Assessment Change Notice was not properly sent to Petitioner

Year(s) Under Appeal:

2026

 

Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal:

Parcel Number:

1510892

Classification of Property: Real (check one)

Residential (check one)

Current Assessed Value as established by the Board of Review:

403500

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

3 of 3

403500

What do you believe is the fair market value?

675000

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value.

337500

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

337500

 

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

Petitioner’s Signature: 

/s/ Jason C. Long

Attorney or Authorized Agent’s Signature:

/s/ 

Fee Information:

If you do not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of the filing of this petition, you are required to pay a filing fee for 

the filing of this appeal.

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.

Property tax appeal: Residential** Non-Residential

SEV or TV in contention*

 

 Filing fee*** Filing Fee**

$100,000 or less...........................................................................................$ 125.00 $250.00

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00.........................................................................$ 200.00 N/A

More than $500,000…..................................................................................$ 300.00 N/A

Does the subject property have a principal residence exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition?

Yes

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.