Background
James B. Peterson challenged Spring Lake Township’s 2024 assessment of his Ottawa County residence. The township assigned the property a true cash value of $946,600, a state equalized value of $473,300, and a taxable value of $407,454. Of the $32,926 increase in taxable value, $14,200 was attributed to new construction and a market adjustment.
Peterson argued that renovations—including bathroom and bedroom work, kitchen remodeling, and replacement of the heating system—were normal repairs, replacements, or maintenance that MCL 211.27(2) barred the assessor from considering until the property was sold. The Tax Tribunal dismissed his petition after finding that he had not adequately documented the renovations, established when they occurred or whether they had already been assessed, or presented relevant evidence of the property’s true cash value.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that competent, material, and substantial evidence supported the Tribunal’s finding that Peterson failed to meet his burden of going forward with evidence showing which improvements qualified for nonconsideration under MCL 211.27(2). Although he offered some specific testimony about the upstairs bathroom and bedroom, he could not establish when the kitchen and heating-system work occurred and supplied no documentary evidence concerning those improvements beyond a permit covering bathroom work.
The court therefore declined to decide whether particular improvements would qualify as exempt normal repairs, replacements, or maintenance on a sufficiently developed record. It also upheld the finding that Peterson failed to produce adequate evidence of the property’s true cash value under a recognized valuation approach. His testimony that he acquired the property by land contract for “over $503,000” in 2019 or 2020 was insufficient to trigger the Tribunal’s duty to make an independent true-cash-value determination for tax year 2024.
Key Takeaways
- A taxpayer invoking MCL 211.27(2) must present evidence identifying the work, when it occurred, and whether it was previously reflected in the assessment.
- The decision does not hold that Peterson’s renovations were categorically outside the statute; the court found the evidentiary record insufficient to decide whether particular items qualified.
- A Tax Tribunal petitioner must offer competent valuation evidence before the Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of true cash value.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that merely describing renovations or citing categories listed in the Mathieu-Gast Home Improvement Act will not sustain a property-tax challenge. Taxpayers should preserve permits, invoices, dates, descriptions, and assessment history capable of distinguishing qualifying maintenance or replacement from taxable new construction.
It also confirms that challenging particular assessment additions does not eliminate the petitioner’s obligation to support the asserted property value. Without evidence tied to an accepted valuation method, the Tax Tribunal may dismiss the case without independently calculating true cash value.