President Inn Properties, LLC v. City of Grand Rapids
291 Mich. App. 625
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Petitioner operates a hotel on two parcels; Tax Tribunal set 2004–2006 TCV, SEV, TV for those parcels.
- Hearing below: petitioner claimed TCV below rolls; respondent claimed TCV above rolls.
- Tribunal largely adopted referee findings but discounted petitioner’s appraiser credibility and weight.
- Final opinion and judgment affirm the Tribunal’s values but remand for clerical corrections to parcel ID 41-14-05-276-009 and 2006 TV of the other parcel ($678,864).
- Parcel numbers involved: 41-14-05-276-011 and 41-14-05-276-001; post-decision clerical corrections referenced.
- Lawful review: Michigan Tax Tribunal decision subject to de novo review; Tribunal may independently determine TCV and may reassess credibility and weight of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibit E was properly admitted for impeachment. | Petitioner argues Exhibit E was not admitted for valuation and its admission was erroneous. | Respondent argues Exhibit E was admitted solely for impeachment and weight remains with the referee’s valuation. | Exhibit E admitted only for impeachment; no reversible error. |
| Whether the Tribunal properly reassessed appraisal credibility and weight. | Petitioner contends the Tribunal erred in reassessing credibility and weight given to petitioner’s appraiser. | Respondent contends the Tribunal may independently evaluate credibility and weight under MCL 205.726 and APA rules. | Tribunal did not err in reconsidering credibility and adjusting weight. |
| Whether the Tribunal used an incorrect valuation method or failed to independently determine TCV. | Petitioner asserts the valuation method should be income-capitalization; argues for independent determination of TCV. | Respondent argues multiple approaches may be used; final value must reflect fair market value; cannot rely solely on cost-less-depreciation. | Tribunal may employ multiple approaches; independently determined TCV within evidence range; not required to rely only on a single method. |
| Whether adopting the assessed valuation on the rolls as TCV was error. | Petitioner contends the Tribunal cannot adopt assessed values without independent support. | Respondent argues the Tribunal may adopt or align with rolls if supported by competent evidence. | Tribunal’s adoption of the assessed valuation was permissible given competent, substantial evidence; within evidentiary range. |
| Whether the final opinion failed to provide separate findings of fact and conclusions of law. | Petitioner argues MCL 205.751(1) and MCL 24.285 require separate sections; lack of labeling is error. | Tribunal's form defect did not prejudice petitioner and does not warrant reversal. | Error deemed non-prejudicial; affirmation despite lack of separately captioned sections; remand only for clerical corrections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antisdale v Galesburg, 420 Mich 265 (Mich. 1984) (defines true cash value and valuation framework)
- Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473 (Mich. 1991) (final value must reflect usual price; multiple approaches allowed)
- Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379 (Mich. App. 1998) (de novo review; Tribunal may independently determine value)
- Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348 (Mich. App. 1992) (burden of proof; weighing evidence; Tribunal may reconcile approaches)
- Consol Aluminum Corp v Richmond Twp, 88 Mich App 229 (Mich. App. 1979) (Tribunal cannot rely solely on rolls; needs independent valuation)
- Teledyne Continental Motors v Muskegon Twp, 145 Mich App 749 (Mich. App. 1985) (Tribunal may consider different valuation theories; not bound to one method)
- Northwood Apartments v Royal Oak, 98 Mich App 721 (Mich. App. 1980) (any reasonable method tied to fair market value is acceptable)
- Southfield Western, Inc v Southfield, 146 Mich App 585 (Mich. App. 1985) (income/market/cost approaches; valuation within reasonable range)
- Presque Isle Harbor Water Co v Presque Isle Twp, 130 Mich App 182 (Mich. App. 1983) (proper method is not exclusively prescribed; depends on case context)