Detroit Lions, Inc. v. City of Dearborn
302 Mich. App. 676
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Consolidated appeals involve ad valorem taxation of Detroit Lions headquarters and practice facility and associated personal property in Dearborn and Allen Park.
- 82/18 tax split applies to both real and personal property between Dearborn (82%) and Allen Park (18%).
- Facility was built by Ford Land; lease to Lions; ownership eventually transferred via WCF Land purchasing from Ford Land on March 25, 2004 for $44,015,000.
- Lions retained leasehold; transfer was between Ford Land and WCF Land, not involving Lions; question whether uncapping occurs on transfer between related entities under common control.
- MTT determined transfer was not uncapping because entities were not commonly controlled; petitioners challenged this and valuation methods for real and personal property.
- MTT valuations: real property valued using build-to-suit cost plus land value; personal property valuations contested—Clarkson (Lions’ assets) vs. Consiglio (STC-based multiplier approach).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Uncapping the taxable value on transfer between Ford Land and WCF Land | Allen Park: transfer was uncapping since not commonly controlled. | Dearborn: transfer between Ford Land and WCF Land not uncapping due to lack of common control. | Uncapping applied; transfer between Ford Land and WCF Land gave rise to uncapping. |
| True cash value of the practice facility (real property) 2004–2009 | Petitioners contend higher value using alternative highest and best use and market data. | MTT properly used existing use and build-to-suit cost, with depreciation, as best evidence. | MTT’s real-property valuations upheld as principled and supported by substantial evidence. |
| Highest and best use methodology for real property | Petitioners argue alternative uses should be considered; market demand supports other uses. | MTT properly found existing use as highest and best use given zoning and market evidence. | Existing use sustained as highest and best use; alternative uses rejected with substantial evidence. |
| True cash value of personal property (2005–2009) independent valuation | Clarkson’s market-data method should determine true cash value asset-by-asset. | Consiglio’s STC-multiplier approach is more credible; Clarkson unreliable and missing items. | MTT erred by not independently determining value; remand for independent valuation of personal property. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwass v Riverton Twp, 290 Mich App 220 (2010) (uncapping triggered by transfer of ownership between related individuals/entities)
- Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v Holland, 437 Mich 473 (1993) (true cash value factors and valuation approaches; cost-less-depreciation methods recognized)
- Detroit/Wayne Co Stadium Auth v Drinkwater, 267 Mich App 625 (2005) (highest and best use concept for valuation)
- Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376 (1979) (existing use may be indicative of value; caution with unique properties)
- Wayne Co v State Tax Comm, 261 Mich App 174 (2004) (true cash value concepts and valuation methods; STC multipliers guidance)
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348 (1992) (substantial evidence standard for tribunal findings)
- Pontiac Country Club v Waterford Twp, 299 Mich App 427 (2013) (need for independent appraisal and weighing multiple valuation approaches)
- Detroit Lions, Inc v Dearborn, unpublished opinion per curiam, Docket No. 266260 (2007) (existing use as highest and best use previously recognized)
- Lionel Trains, Inc v Chesterfield Twp, 224 Mich App 350 (1997) (multiple valuation approaches and reconciliation guidance)