Drew v. Cass County
299 Mich. App. 495
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Subject property at 31845 W Lakeshore Dr., Dowagiac, Michigan, is a residential island property claimed as petitioners' principal residence for tax years 2007–2011.
- Respondent denied the principal residence exemption (PRE) because the property was not petitioners' true, fixed, and permanent home.
- Petitioners provided licenses, voter registration, and tax returns listing the property as their residence; they testified they lived there April–October with six children.
- Respondent presented evidence of minimal utilities usage and a resident's testimony that no one lived permanently on the island; petitioners own other homes nearby.
- NTT referee concluded petitioners failed to prove occupancy; final MTT opinion adopted the referee's reasoning and emphasized lack of substantial utility use.
- Petitioners appeal, arguing utility bills reflected services to the island property, not other parcels; court reviews MTT's findings for substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property qualifies as petitioners' principal residence. | Petitioners relied on licenses, registration, and filings showing residence. | Utility bills show little usage; island property is seasonal; petitioners have other nearby residences. | No; evidence supports the MTT that the property was not the principal residence. |
| Whether the MTT properly weighed credibility and competing evidence. | Petitioners submitted documents; credibility should favor occupancy. | MTT correctly weighed evidence and credibility; utility data undermine occupancy. | Yes; MTT’s credibility determinations were supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether petitioners bore burden of proof by preponderance to establish occupancy. | Petitioners proved ownership and intent to return; occupancy evidenced by documents. | Documents were not dispositive without demonstrable occupancy and consistent utility use. | Yes; petitioners failed to prove occupancy by a preponderance. |
| Whether statutory interpretation of MCL 211.7cc/211.7dd(c) requires a different outcome. | Statutory language supports residence at question as principal residence. | Statutes are narrowly construed in favor of taxing authority; facts show seasonal use. | Yes; the statutory framework supports affirming the MTT decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- EldenBrady v Albion, 294 Mich App 251 (2011) (defines principal residence; statutory framework for PRE)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (2010) (credibility assigned to trier of fact; deference on witness credibility)
- People v Hill, 257 Mich App 126 (2003) (limits on appellate interference with weight of evidence)
- Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379 (1998) (deference to tribunal on evidentiary weight)
- Liberty Hill Housing Corp v Livonia, 480 Mich 44 (2008) (statutes exempting from taxation narrowly construed in favor of taxing authority)