Pontiac Country Club v. Waterford Township
299 Mich. App. 427
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Consolidated appeals from Michigan Tax Tribunal ruling valuing nine Waterford Township parcels (Country Club and Waterford Township).
- Country Club sought true cash value for parcels; township assessed 2004–2006 values (approx. $3.92M, $3.86M, $4.22M).
- Admissions ordered by Tribunal in 2006 deemed; summary-disposition motions filed by both sides; dispute remained over true cash value.
- Hearing held January 2008; Country Club presented income and land-use valuations; Township and expert testimony offered competing valuations.
- Tribunal rejected Rende’s income-based value and Bologna’s hypothetical rezoning-based value; found values supported by evidence and that current use remained appropriate.
- Township moved for costs in 2011; Tribunal denied costs and found no frivolous action by Country Club; this appeal challenges those rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tribunal independently determined true cash value or merely adopted assessment. | Country Club contends Tribunal adopted assessment without independent support. | Township argues Tribunal used competent evidence and could adopt assessment within evidence range. | Tribunal independently determined true cash value within evidentiary range. |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Tribunal’s true cash value determinations. | Country Club argues the proffered appraisals were credible and should set value. | Township contends Rende’s and Bologna’s values were not credible or insufficient given zoning. | Tribunal’s findings supported by competent, material, substantial evidence; rejected both appraisals. |
| Whether Township was prevailing party and/or admissions justified denial of costs. | Country Club asserts Township failed to show improved position and frivolous action; costs were improper. | Township claims prevailing-party status and frivolous-action grounds. | Tribunal did not err in denying prevailing-party status or in finding no frivolous action. |
| Whether hearing was frivolous given admissions. | Admissions would render hearing unnecessary. | Hearing remained necessary to resolve disputed factual issues and determine true cash value. | Hearing not frivolous; admissions did not resolve true cash value and independent determination was required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mich Props, LLC v Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518 (2012) (recognizes true cash value standards and related principles of valuation)
- DeWald v Isola, 180 Mich App 129 (1989) (sanctions for frivolous claims; basic legal principles apply)
- President Inn Props, LLC v Grand Rapids, 291 Mich App 625 (2011) (precedent on costs and appellate review standards)
- Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473 (1991) (addressing valuation and public-use considerations)
- Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v City of Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379 (1998) (comparative valuation and zoning considerations in property assessment)
- Kitchen v Kitchen, 465 Mich 654 (2002) (standard of review for factual findings; credibility)