Eldenbrady v. City of Albion
294 Mich. App. 251
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Petitioners own a 10-acre parcel contiguous to their residence, with an abandoned school building on the parcel.
- The 10-acre parcel is zoned residential and petitioners obtained permission to plant a garden and build a fence there.
- Petitioners sought to extend the principal residence exemption to the 10-acre parcel for tax years 2008 and 2009, arguing it was part of their home and unoccupied.
- The City of Albion denied the extension, stating the parcel was not vacant because of the building on it.
- The MTT denied the exemption, relying on Treasury guidelines equating unoccupied with vacant and noting the building on the parcel.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that unoccupied, not vacant, is the proper standard for the third sentence of MCL 211.7dd(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 10-acre parcel qualifies for the principal residence exemption under MCL 211.7dd(c). | Petitioners argue the parcel is residential, contiguous, and unoccupied, warranting the exemption. | Respondent/MTT argued the parcel is not unoccupied because of the abandoned school building and thus not eligible. | Yes; the parcel is unoccupied and eligible when contiguous, residential, and unoccupied. |
| Does unoccupied mean vacant in the context of MCL 211.7dd(c), or can unoccupied be distinct from vacant? | Unoccupied should be read to mean without human occupants, not necessarily completely vacant. | Unoccupied and vacant are treated as synonyms, requiring vacancy to qualify. | Unoccupied is the correct standard; it does not require the property to be vacant. |
| What is the proper statutory interpretation and standard of review in determining eligibility for the exemption? | The statute should be interpreted to grant the exemption when statutory requirements are met. | The MTT’s interpretation and Treasury guidelines should be applied to deny the exemption when the parcel has a building. | The court reviews de novo for statutory interpretation and reverses the MTT's misinterpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinder Morgan Mich, LLC v City of Jackson, 277 Mich App 159 (2007) (statutory interpretation and standard of review)
- Wexford Med Group v Cadillac, 474 Mich 192 (2006) (de novo review for statutory interpretation)
- Inter Coop Council v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 219 (2003) (homestead exemption framework)
- McNeel v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 289 Mich App 76 (2010) (distinction between vacant and unoccupied)
- Vushaj v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 284 Mich App 513 (2009) (unoccupant vs occupant interpretation guidance)
- Guardian Indus Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 243 Mich App 244 (2000) (strict construction of exemptions; express grant required)
- Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142 (1948) (strict construction of exemptions; need express terms)
- Shinholster v Annapolis Hosp, 471 Mich 540 (2004) (interpretive approach to statutory language)