Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust Petitioner Vs. Township Of Chesterfield 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

NOTICE OF AUGUST 16- 31, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business 

Trust,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

Township Of Chesterfield,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 26-002430

Please be advised that 26-002430 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing August 16, 2027. 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covered by the order will not be published.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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002430

Page 2 of 3

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s 

website for more information.

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 April 19, 2027. 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 April 19, 2027. 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 

April 19, 2027, 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 

August 16, 2027, 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

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 26-002430

Page 3 of 3

Entered: September 16, 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 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 AUGUST 16- 31, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL

Page 5

MTT

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 

 

Petitioner, 

v 

Chesterfield Township, 

 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 26-002430 

Parcel No. 15-09-31-351-021 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

MICHAEL B. SHAPIRO (P20282) 

JACKIE J. COOK (P68781) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7622 

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, Chesterfield Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 for the reason 

that the Tribunal’s Order speaks for itself. 

2. 

Respondent lacks the knowledge and information necessary to respond to the 

allegations in Paragraph 2 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 2

2

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 with respect to parcel number 

and address but lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder of the 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

4. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4. 

5. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 

6. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. 

Upon information and belief, Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 9 but denies 

that Petitioner’s claims have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

10. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief but denies any such loss has occurred. 

11. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 as the General 

Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 

12. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 12, 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. 

13. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in 

the above Paragraphs.

Page 3

3

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Chesterfield Township, 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 6, 2026 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, Chesterfield Township, 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 essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by 

application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other 

properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 

9. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

10. 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional 

acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 

11. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

12. 

Petitioner has failed to pursue

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

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-002430

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

Township Of Chesterfield (MACOMB)

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

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

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Laura

M.I.

Last Name

Hallahan

Firm Name (if any)

Hallahan & Associates PC

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

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

City or Town

Bloomfield Hills

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48302

Telephone Number

248-731-3089

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

mtt@hallahanlaw.com

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

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

/s/Kelsea M. Melcher

/s/

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MTT Docket No. 26-002430 

Parcel No. 15-09-31-351-021 

Chesterfield Twp., 

Respondent. 

Michael B. Shapiro (P20282) 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7622 

mshapiro@honigman.com 

jcook@honigman.com 

Proof of Service 

Lisa Joseph states that she is employed by HONIGMAN LLP, attorneys for Petitioner, and 

that on July 6, 2026, she did serve a copy of Petitioner's Petition, with docket number, upon the 

parties named on the attached list. 

A fanpage 

Lisa Joseph 

/ 

25-0013 

76110631.1

Page 2

BY CERTIFIED UNITED STATES MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED: 

CLERK 

CHESTERFIELD TWP. 

47275 SUGARBUSH ROAD 

CHESTERFIELD TWP., MI 48047 

ASSESSOR 

CHESTERFIELD TWP. 

47275 SUGARBUSH ROAD 

CHESTERFIELD TWP., MI 48047 

AND BY FIRST-CLASS UNITED STATES MAIL: 

CLERK 

MACOMB COUNTY 

ATTN: F. KRYCIA ADM BLDG. 

1 S. MAIN ST., 8TH FLOOR 

MT. CLEMENS, MI 48043 

DIRECTOR OF EQUALIZATION 

MACOMB COUNTY 

ATTN: F. KRYCIA ADM BLDG. 

1 S. MAIN ST., 8TH FLOOR 

MT. CLEMENS, MI 48043 

SECRETARY OF SCHOOL BOARD 

L'ANSE CREUSE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

24076 FREDERICK PANKOW BLVD. 

CLINTON TWP., MI 48036-1304 

STATE TREASURER 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

TREASURY BUILDING 

430 W. ALLEGAN ST. 

LANSING, MI 48922 

76110631.1 

26-0074

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: 26-002430

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

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Proof of Service: Petition

Attachment File Name: Walmart Chesterfield POS

Fee Information

Filing Fee: $ 0.00

Payment Information

Payment: $ 0.00

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

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

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-002430

Township Of Chesterfield, 

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 1, 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

25-0013 

76110631.1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Chesterfield Twp., 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 26-002430 

Parcel No. 15-09-31-351-021 

Michael B. Shapiro (P20282) 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7622 

mshapiro@honigman.com

jcook@honigman.com

Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition 

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust (“Petitioner”), through its attorneys, Honigman LLP, 

says: 

1.

Petitioner hereby files this Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition pursuant to and as 

required by Michigan Tax Tribunal Order Severing 2026 Tax Year and Assigning it to Docket No. 

26-002430, dated June 24, 2026. 

2.

Petitioner's principal office address is Property Tax Department, 2608 SE J Street, 

Suite 2, Bentonville, AR 72716-0555. 

3.

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 

15-09-31-351-021 ("Petitioner's Property"), with an address of 45500 Marketplace Blvd,

Page 2

2 

76110631.1 

Chesterfield Township, MI, located in Macomb County. 

4.

Respondent, Chesterfield Twp., assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's 

Property. 

5.

Respondent’s March board of review set the 2026 taxable value of Petitioner's 

Property at $7,684,219 and set the assessed value of Petitioner's Property at $7,904,400, which 

will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization 

factor. 

6.

Petitioner's Property is classified as commercial real. 

7.

Petitioner's Property is presently used or available for use for retail purposes. 

8.

Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for 

retail purposes. 

9.

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable 

value, and (d) uniformity. 

10.

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute 

relative to the value of a loss. 

11.

A Board of Review protest was not required for Petitioner’s Property. 

12.

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed 

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful 

and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

(a)

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(b)

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value,

Page 3

3 

76110631.1 

is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the 

Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(c)

The 2026 assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, 

is based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that 

portion of Petitioner's Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is 

based upon the application of wrong principles; and 

(d)

The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against 

Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal 

protection, and due process of law. 

 WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order: (i) reducing the 

2026 taxable value of Petitioner's Property from $7,684,219 to $3,800,000; (ii) reducing the 2026 

assessed value and state equalized value of Petitioner's Property from $7,904,400 to $3,800,000; 

(iii) requiring payment to Petitioner of the refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and 

costs; and (iv) awarding Petitioner any other relief to which it is entitled. 

Dated: June 29, 2026 

Respectfully submitted, 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By: _______________________________________ 

Michael B. Shapiro (P20282) 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7622 

mshapiro@honigman.com

Page 4

4 

76110631.1 

Dated: June 29, 2026

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

By: _______________________________________ 

Jackie J. Cook (P68781) 

2290 First National Building 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 465-7270 

jcook@honigman.com

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: 26-002430

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

Party Filing Document 

Petitioner

Files

Document Type: Severed Petition

Attachment File Name: 2026 Petition per Sever Order - Wal-Mart Chesterfield (26-002430)

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 

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket Nos. 24-001077 & 

 

 

26-002430 

 

Chesterfield Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2026 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

MTT DOCKET NUMBER 26-002430 

 

On May 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal permit them to 

amend the petition filed in this case to include the 2026 tax year. 

 

On June 18, 2026, Respondent filed a response to the motion. In the response, 

Respondent states that: 

 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner via the final 

paragraph of its Motion but denies that Petitioner should be granted such 

relief. If Petitioner is permitted to pursue its claim relative to the 2026 tax 

year, Respondent requests that the 2026 tax year be assigned its own 

docket number and be allowed to proceed independent of this appeal. The 

above captioned appeal has already been scheduled for hearing, 

prehearing statements and valuation disclosures have already been 

exchanged, and discovery is closed. Amending the 2026 tax year to the 

above captioned appeal at this stage of the proceedings would be severely 

and irreversibly prejudicial to Respondent as it would deprive Respondent 

sufficient notice of said claims as well as hinder Respondent’s ability to 

mount a defense regarding said claims. Respondent incorporates by 

reference herein the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to Petition 

herein. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion, response, and case file and finds that 

Petitioner timely filed its Motion to Amend, included the necessary information and filing 

fee, and otherwise met all requirements, as set forth in MCL 205.737 and MCL 

205.735a. Due to the stage in which this case is at, however, and in the interest of 

judicial efficiency, the 2026 tax year shall be severed from this case and assigned to a 

new docket number. Therefore,

Page 2

MTT Docket Nos. 24-001077 & 26-002430 

Page 2 of 2 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal for the 2026 tax year is 

SEVERED and ASSIGNED to MTT Docket No. 26-002430. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a petition pertaining to the 2026 tax 

year within 21 days of the entry of this order.1 The petition shall note the docket number 

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2026 tax year and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2026 docket number as a “Severed Petition.”2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Tribunal shall issue a Notice of Docket after receipt 

of the petition for the 2026 tax year. 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the appeal for the 2026 tax 

year.3 

 

 

Entered: June 24, 2026 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

kac 

 

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 

 

 

1 See TTR 233. 

2 Alternatively, the petition may be downloaded from the Tribunal’s website and mailed to the Tribunal via 

United States Postal Service at: Michigan Tax Tribunal, PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. The petition 

may also be delivered to the Tribunal via overnight carrier (UPS, FedEx, or DHL) at: Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, 2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933. 

3 See TTR 237.

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.