Xap Enterprises, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek, Respondent

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JAN 0:5 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Xap Enterprises, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

City Of Battle Creek, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 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,

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

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: 

Talley 

oF. Ha hrs 

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair 

Entered: December 12, 2025 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| 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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

XAP ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner, Xap Enterprises, moves for reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal entered on 

December 12, 2025. Petitioner asserts that a manifest error exists in the dismissal based on the 

following: 

1. Violation of Constitutional Due Process The Tribunal dismissed this case citing the May 31 

filing deadline under MCL 205.735a(6). However, Petitioner never received the 2025 Notice of 

Assessment required by MCL 211.24¢. Under Sidun v. Wayne Co. Treasurer, 481 Mich 503 

(2008), the government must provide notice "reasonably calculated" to apprise parties of an 

action. Because the City failed its statutory duty to provide notice despite Petitioner timely filing 

a Property Transfer Affidavit in October 2024, the deadline was constitutionally tolled. 

2. Jurisdictional Exception Per Parkview Village Assoc v. City of Warren, 244 Mich App 383 

(2001), statutory deadlines for appeal assume the taxing authority has complied with mandatory 

notice requirements. Without the 2025 Notice, the jurisdictional "clock" for the March Board of 

Review and the subsequent May 31 Tribunal deadline never legally commenced. 

3. Equitable Context and Manifest Injustice Petitioner is a first-time investor in Michigan real 

estate. In all prior investment experience, property assessments were based on actual market 

value. Petitioner had no reason to anticipate an assessment of $1,417,400 TCV for a property 

purchased on October 1, 2024, for $400,000.00. As verified by the ALTA Settlement 

Statement (Exhibit B), the purchase price was explicitly allocated as $400,000.00 for the real 

property, with a separate $200,000.00 for an asset purchase. To uphold a dismissal where the 

assessment is over 350% of the verified arm's-length purchase price—and where notice was 

never provided—constitutes a manifest injustice. 

4. Conclusion Petitioner acted with immediate diligence upon discovering the error in the July 

2025 tax bill. Petitioner has included the required $50.00 filing fee for this motion as mandated

Page 4

o 

Exhibit C: Notarized Affidavit of Non-Receipt of 2025 Assessment Notice. 

o 

Exhibit D: Michigan Tax Tribunal Order of Dismissal dated December 12, 2025. 

« 

Exhibit E: Signed Proof of Service. 

Respectfully submitted 

ans 

Ol 

Mawsele 

© on 

Marisela Ellwanger, Managing MembetDated: December 29, 2025

Page 5

AFFIDAVIT OF NON-RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE & TRUE CASH VALUE 

1, Marisela Ellwanger being first duly sworn, depose and say: 

ii 

2. 

I am the Managing Member of XAP Enterprises LLC, the owner of the property located 

at 2 W Michigan Ave, Battle Creek, MI (Parcel 0252-00-037-0). 

XAP Enterprises LLC purchased this property on October 1, 2024, in an arm’s-length 

transaction for a total of $600,000, with $400,000 specifically allocated to real 

property. 

I timely filed the Property Transfer Affidavit (PTA) in October 2024 confirming this 

transaction. 

I am the individual responsible for receiving all legal and tax correspondence for the 

LLC. I hereby attest that no 2025 Notice of Assessment for the subject property was ever 

received by the LLC. 

Because no notice was received,

Page 6

WARR

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 

Xap Enterprises, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

 

City of Battle Creek, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on December 12, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with proper notice since it 

never received the notice of assessment. Further, Petitioner contends that the statutory 

deadlines for filing are tolled due to 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.1 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because the petition was not filed by the May 31 deadline set forth 

by MCL 205.735a(6). Although Petitioner contends that it did not receive the notice of 

assessment and refers to Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia2 to assert that the 

filing deadline never commenced, the Michigan Supreme Court recently overturned 

Parkview and reaffirmed 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 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.3 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. 

 

1 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). 

2 In the motion, Petitioner cited “Parkview Village Assoc v City of Warren, 244 Mich App 383 (2001),” 

however, the Tribunal finds that this case does not exist. Based on Petitioner’s assertions, it appears that 

Petitioner is referring to Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990). 

3 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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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: January 12, 2026 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

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

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

Page 1

RECEIVED 

JAN 0:5 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Xap Enterprises, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL 

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

City Of Battle Creek, 

Respondent. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

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

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 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,

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

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: 

Talley 

oF. Ha hrs 

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair 

Entered: December 12, 2025 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| 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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

XAP ENTERPRISES, Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner, Xap Enterprises, moves for reconsideration of the Order of Dismissal entered on 

December 12, 2025. Petitioner asserts that a manifest error exists in the dismissal based on the 

following: 

1. Violation of Constitutional Due Process The Tribunal dismissed this case citing the May 31 

filing deadline under MCL 205.735a(6). However, Petitioner never received the 2025 Notice of 

Assessment required by MCL 211.24¢. Under Sidun v. Wayne Co. Treasurer, 481 Mich 503 

(2008), the government must provide notice "reasonably calculated" to apprise parties of an 

action. Because the City failed its statutory duty to provide notice despite Petitioner timely filing 

a Property Transfer Affidavit in October 2024, the deadline was constitutionally tolled. 

2. Jurisdictional Exception Per Parkview Village Assoc v. City of Warren, 244 Mich App 383 

(2001), statutory deadlines for appeal assume the taxing authority has complied with mandatory 

notice requirements. Without the 2025 Notice, the jurisdictional "clock" for the March Board of 

Review and the subsequent May 31 Tribunal deadline never legally commenced. 

3. Equitable Context and Manifest Injustice Petitioner is a first-time investor in Michigan real 

estate. In all prior investment experience, property assessments were based on actual market 

value. Petitioner had no reason to anticipate an assessment of $1,417,400 TCV for a property 

purchased on October 1, 2024, for $400,000.00. As verified by the ALTA Settlement 

Statement (Exhibit B), the purchase price was explicitly allocated as $400,000.00 for the real 

property, with a separate $200,000.00 for an asset purchase. To uphold a dismissal where the 

assessment is over 350% of the verified arm's-length purchase price—and where notice was 

never provided—constitutes a manifest injustice. 

4. Conclusion Petitioner acted with immediate diligence upon discovering the error in the July 

2025 tax bill. Petitioner has included the required $50.00 filing fee for this motion as mandated

Page 4

o 

Exhibit C: Notarized Affidavit of Non-Receipt of 2025 Assessment Notice. 

o 

Exhibit D: Michigan Tax Tribunal Order of Dismissal dated December 12, 2025. 

« 

Exhibit E: Signed Proof of Service. 

Respectfully submitted 

ans 

Ol 

Mawsele 

© on 

Marisela Ellwanger, Managing MembetDated: December 29, 2025

Page 5

AFFIDAVIT OF NON-RECEIPT OF ASSESSMENT NOTICE & TRUE CASH VALUE 

1, Marisela Ellwanger being first duly sworn, depose and say: 

ii 

2. 

I am the Managing Member of XAP Enterprises LLC, the owner of the property located 

at 2 W Michigan Ave, Battle Creek, MI (Parcel 0252-00-037-0). 

XAP Enterprises LLC purchased this property on October 1, 2024, in an arm’s-length 

transaction for a total of $600,000, with $400,000 specifically allocated to real 

property. 

I timely filed the Property Transfer Affidavit (PTA) in October 2024 confirming this 

transaction. 

I am the individual responsible for receiving all legal and tax correspondence for the 

LLC. I hereby attest that no 2025 Notice of Assessment for the subject property was ever 

received by the LLC. 

Because no notice was received,

Page 6

WARR

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

Xap Enterprises, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-003833

City Of Battle Creek,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 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. 25-003833

Page 2 of 6

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:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: December 12, 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

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

Xap Enterprises, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 25-003833

City Of Battle Creek,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). 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 Docket No. 25-003833

Page 4 of 6

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.

Page 5

STATE OF

Page 6

M

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

Page 1

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — PETITION NARRATIVE 

Date 12-10-2025 

Petitioner: XAP Enterprises LLC 

Parcel No.: 0252-00-037-0 

Property Address: 457 West Columbia Ave, Battle Creek, MI 

Tax Year: 2025 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

XAP Enterprises LLC (“Petitioner”) appeals the 2025 real property assessment for the above-referenced parcel. 

The City of Battle Creek assigned a 2025 State Equalized Value (“SEV”) of $708,700, implying a True Cash 

Value (“TCV”) of approximately $1,417,400. This assessed value is excessive, unconstitutional, unsupported 

by market evidence, and inconsistent with both the verified sale of the property and standard methods of 

valuation. 

Petitioner seeks correction of the assessment and requests that the Tribunal establish a TCV of $400,000 and 

SEV of $200,000 for the 2025 tax year. 

 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

1. Arm’s-Length October 1, 2024 Sale 

Petitioner purchased the subject property in a verified arm’s-length transaction on October 1, 2024 for 

$400,000 attributable to the real estate. 

2. Separate Business Value 

An additional $200,000 in consideration was paid for business assets and operational value. This portion 

is not real property and cannot legally be included in the SEV or TCV. 

3. Partial Occupancy and Limited Income 

The building was only partially occupied at the time of purchase. Actual rent roll and vacancy 

conditions materially reduce the economic value of the property. A Statement of Partial Occupancy is 

attached. 

4. 2025 Assessment 

Despite the verified sale and occupancy data, the City issued a 2025 SEV of $708,700, implying a TCV 

exceeding $1.4 million, more than three times the real-estate sale price. 

5. Submission to Assessor 

Petitioner submitted a written Request for Correction of Assessment to the Assessor with sale 

documents, occupancy information, and a supporting market analysis. No correction was made. 

 

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

A. SEV Must Equal 50% of True Cash Value 

Michigan Constitution, art. 9 §3, and MCL 211.27 require that real property be assessed at no more than 50% 

of its TCV.

Page 2

B. True Cash Value = Usual Selling Price 

Under MCL 211.27(1): 

“True cash value” means the usual selling price at a private sale. 

A recent arm’s-length sale is the most reliable and persuasive evidence of TCV under long-standing Michigan 

case law (Jones & Laughlin Steel, Meijer v Midland, Great Lakes Div. of Nat’l Steel, etc.). 

C. Uncapping Applies Only to Taxable Value, Not Market Value 

Under MCL 211.27a(3), Taxable Value is “uncapped” the year after a transfer of ownership. 

However: 

• 

Uncapping does not determine SEV 

• 

Uncapping does not determine TCV 

• 

SEV must still reflect current market value 

The assessor cannot lawfully use the prior capped Taxable Value trajectory to determine SEV. 

 

IV. ERRORS IN THE 2025 ASSESSMENT 

A. Assessment Based on Capped Value Instead of Market Value 

The 2025 assessment reflects a critical valuation error. The assessor appears to have taken the prior owner’s 

capped Taxable Value, rolled it forward through 2024, and then simply uncapped that trajectory for 2025. 

The “cap” under Proposal A applies only to Taxable Value increases and has no legal bearing on the 

determination of True Cash Value or State Equalized Value. 

By relying on capped TV growth rather than market evidence, the assessor failed to: 

• 

Reset SEV to 50% of market value, as required by law; 

• 

Consider the verified October 1, 2024 arm’s-length sale, the most reliable TCV indicator; 

• 

Account for partial occupancy and limited income, which materially reduce TCV under the income 

approach; 

• 

Incorporate functional and economic obsolescence, given the building’s age, condition, and vacancy; 

• 

Separate real property value from business value, despite clear documentation allocating only 

$400,000 to the real estate. 

Treating capped Taxable Value as a proxy for SEV is a legal error under both the Michigan Constitution and 

MCL 211.27. 

B. Ignoring the October 2024 Arm’s-Length Sale 

The real-estate component of the October 2024 transaction was $400,000. Michigan courts consistently hold 

that a recent arm’s-length sale is the best evidence of TCV. The City’s implied TCV of over $1.4 million 

conflicts directly with this evidence and is therefore excessive and unsupported.

Page 3

C. Market Conditions and Income Approach Support a $400,000 TCV 

The attached Supporting Market Value Analysis demonstrates: 

• 

Comparable sales in Battle Creek at significantly lower price-per-square-foot ranges; 

• 

Limited commercial demand in the corridor; 

• 

A rent roll and vacancy profile inconsistent with a value above the sale price; 

• 

Income-based valuation results aligning closely with a TCV of $400,000. 

 

V. REQUESTED CORRECTION 

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 

✔ Establish 2025 TCV at: $400,000 

✔ Establish 2025 SEV at: $200,000 

✔ Adjust 2025 TV accordingly 

✔ Grant any other appropriate relief 

These values reflect market reality, comply with the Michigan Constitution, adhere to statutory requirements, 

and correct the City’s excessive and unsupported assessment. 

 

VI. ATTACHMENTS / EXHIBITS 

1. Warranty Deed – October 1, 2024 

2. Closing Statement (ALTA) 

3. Purchase Price Allocation Documentation 

4. 2025 Tax Bill / Assessment Notice 

5. Statement of Partial Occupancy 

6. Supporting Market Value Analysis 

7. Request for Correction of Assessment Submitted to Assessor 

 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The City’s assessment is not grounded in market evidence and improperly relies on capped taxable value history 

rather than the legally required methods of determining True Cash Value and SEV. The verified sale, 

occupancy, income, and market analyses all support a 2025 TCV of $400,000 and SEV of $200,000. Petitioner 

respectfully requests correction of the assessment as detailed herein.

Page 4

Additional Note Regarding Historical Assessment Pattern 

The subject property had not transferred ownership since the 1990s. As a result, its Taxable Value was

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

Xap Enterprises, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 25-003833

City Of Battle Creek, 

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: December 12, 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

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — PETITION NARRATIVE 

Date 12-10-2025 

Petitioner: XAP Enterprises LLC 

Parcel No.: 0252-00-037-0 

Property Address: 457 West Columbia Ave, Battle Creek, MI 

Tax Year: 2025 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

XAP Enterprises LLC (“Petitioner”) appeals the 2025 real property assessment for the above-referenced parcel. 

The City of Battle Creek assigned a 2025 State Equalized Value (“SEV”) of $708,700, implying a True Cash 

Value (“TCV”) of approximately $1,417,400. This assessed value is excessive, unconstitutional, unsupported 

by market evidence, and inconsistent with both the verified sale of the property and standard methods of 

valuation. 

Petitioner seeks correction of the assessment and requests that the Tribunal establish a TCV of $400,000 and 

SEV of $200,000 for the 2025 tax year. 

 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

1. Arm’s-Length October 1, 2024 Sale 

Petitioner purchased the subject property in a verified arm’s-length transaction on October 1, 2024 for 

$400,000 attributable to the real estate. 

2. Separate Business Value 

An additional $200,000 in consideration was paid for business assets and operational value. This portion 

is not real property and cannot legally be included in the SEV or TCV. 

3. Partial Occupancy and Limited Income 

The building was only partially occupied at the time of purchase. Actual rent roll and vacancy 

conditions materially reduce the economic value of the property. A Statement of Partial Occupancy is 

attached. 

4. 2025 Assessment 

Despite the verified sale and occupancy data, the City issued a 2025 SEV of $708,700, implying a TCV 

exceeding $1.4 million, more than three times the real-estate sale price. 

5. Submission to Assessor 

Petitioner submitted a written Request for Correction of Assessment to the Assessor with sale 

documents, occupancy information, and a supporting market analysis. No correction was made. 

 

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 

A. SEV Must Equal 50% of True Cash Value 

Michigan Constitution, art. 9 §3, and MCL 211.27 require that real property be assessed at no more than 50% 

of its TCV.

Page 2

B. True Cash Value = Usual Selling Price 

Under MCL 211.27(1): 

“True cash value” means the usual selling price at a private sale. 

A recent arm’s-length sale is the most reliable and persuasive evidence of TCV under long-standing Michigan 

case law (Jones & Laughlin Steel, Meijer v Midland, Great Lakes Div. of Nat’l Steel, etc.). 

C. Uncapping Applies Only to Taxable Value, Not Market Value 

Under MCL 211.27a(3), Taxable Value is “uncapped” the year after a transfer of ownership. 

However: 

• 

Uncapping does not determine SEV 

• 

Uncapping does not determine TCV 

• 

SEV must still reflect current market value 

The assessor cannot lawfully use the prior capped Taxable Value trajectory to determine SEV. 

 

IV. ERRORS IN THE 2025 ASSESSMENT 

A. Assessment Based on Capped Value Instead of Market Value 

The 2025 assessment reflects a critical valuation error. The assessor appears to have taken the prior owner’s 

capped Taxable Value, rolled it forward through 2024, and then simply uncapped that trajectory for 2025. 

The “cap” under Proposal A applies only to Taxable Value increases and has no legal bearing on the 

determination of True Cash Value or State Equalized Value. 

By relying on capped TV growth rather than market evidence, the assessor failed to: 

• 

Reset SEV to 50% of market value, as required by law; 

• 

Consider the verified October 1, 2024 arm’s-length sale, the most reliable TCV indicator; 

• 

Account for partial occupancy and limited income, which materially reduce TCV under the income 

approach; 

• 

Incorporate functional and economic obsolescence, given the building’s age, condition, and vacancy; 

• 

Separate real property value from business value, despite clear documentation allocating only 

$400,000 to the real estate. 

Treating capped Taxable Value as a proxy for SEV is a legal error under both the Michigan Constitution and 

MCL 211.27. 

B. Ignoring the October 2024 Arm’s-Length Sale 

The real-estate component of the October 2024 transaction was $400,000. Michigan courts consistently hold 

that a recent arm’s-length sale is the best evidence of TCV. The City’s implied TCV of over $1.4 million 

conflicts directly with this evidence and is therefore excessive and unsupported.

Page 3

C. Market Conditions and Income Approach Support a $400,000 TCV 

The attached Supporting Market Value Analysis demonstrates: 

• 

Comparable sales in Battle Creek at significantly lower price-per-square-foot ranges; 

• 

Limited commercial demand in the corridor; 

• 

A rent roll and vacancy profile inconsistent with a value above the sale price; 

• 

Income-based valuation results aligning closely with a TCV of $400,000. 

 

V. REQUESTED CORRECTION 

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 

✔ Establish 2025 TCV at: $400,000 

✔ Establish 2025 SEV at: $200,000 

✔ Adjust 2025 TV accordingly 

✔ Grant any other appropriate relief 

These values reflect market reality, comply with the Michigan Constitution, adhere to statutory requirements, 

and correct the City’s excessive and unsupported assessment. 

 

VI. ATTACHMENTS / EXHIBITS 

1. Warranty Deed – October 1, 2024 

2. Closing Statement (ALTA) 

3. Purchase Price Allocation Documentation 

4. 2025 Tax Bill / Assessment Notice 

5. Statement of Partial Occupancy 

6. Supporting Market Value Analysis 

7. Request for Correction of Assessment Submitted to Assessor 

 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The City’s assessment is not grounded in market evidence and improperly relies on capped taxable value history 

rather than the legally required methods of determining True Cash Value and SEV. The verified sale, 

occupancy, income, and market analyses all support a 2025 TCV of $400,000 and SEV of $200,000. Petitioner 

respectfully requests correction of the assessment as detailed herein.

Page 4

Additional Note Regarding Historical Assessment Pattern 

The subject property had not transferred ownership since the 1990s. As a result, its Taxable Value was

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

Xap Enterprises

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

1118 Ivy Wall Dr

City or Town

Houston

State

Texas

ZIP Code

77079-5040

Telephone Number

7025396282

Fax Number

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

marisela.ellwanger@gmail.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Ellwanger

M.I.

Last Name

Ellwanger

Firm Name (if any)

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

1118 Ivy Wall Dr

City or Town

Houston

State

Texas

ZIP Code

77079-5040

Telephone Number

702-539-6282

Fax Number

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

marisela.ellwanger@gmail.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]

Michigan

49017

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City Of Battle Creek (CALHOUN)

County

Calhoun

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, Uncapping of Taxable Value, Tax Bill, Other (please explain)

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

0252-00-037-0

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

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

708700

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

708700

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

400000

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

200000

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

200000

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/ Marisela Ellwanger

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.