BROUGHTON DEVELOPMENT V TOWNSHIP OF MACOMB
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BROUGHTON DEVELOPMENT,
UNPUBLISHED
June 17, 2010
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 290893
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00-315333
TOWNSHIP OF MACOMB,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MARKEY and DAVIS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Broughton Development, appeals as of right the February 25, 2009, judgment
entered by the Michigan Tax Tribunal, establishing the true cash value for taxation purposes of
petitioner’s real property in Macomb Township for 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. We affirm.
“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining
whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v
Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5; 610 NW2d 242 (2000) (citation omitted). We affirm the tribunal’s
findings of fact unless they are not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482; 473 NW2d 636
(1991). “Substantial’ means evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to
support the conclusion.” Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379, 389;
576 NW2d 667 (1998) (citation omitted).
The purchase price that was paid for transferring the property “is not the presumptive true
cash value of the property transferred.” MCL 211.27(5). The “true cash value” is defined as
“the usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied is at the time
of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at
auction sale except as otherwise provided in this section, or at forced sale.” MCL 211.27(1).
Further, when determining a property’s true cash value
the assessor shall also consider the advantages and disadvantages of location;
quality of soil; zoning; existing use; present economic income of structures,
including farm structures; present economic income of land if the land is being
farmed or otherwise put to income producing use; quantity and value of standing
timber; water power and privileges; and mines, minerals, quarries, or other
-1-
valuable deposits known to be available in the land and their value. [MCL
211.27(1).]
The concept of the “highest and best use” is:
fundamental to the determination of true cash value. It recognizes that the use to
which a prospective buyer would put the property will influence the price which
the buyer would be willing to pay. Land is appropriately valued “as if available
for development to its highest and best use, that most likely legal use which will
yield the highest present worth.” [Edward Rose Bldg Co v Independence Twp,
436 Mich 620, 633; 462 NW2d 325 (1990) (citation omitted).]
Petitioner bears the burden of establish the true cash value of the property. MCL 205.737(3).
“The tribunal is obliged, however, to make its own finding of true cash value and cannot merely
affirm the assessment as placed upon the rolls by the assessing authority.” Oldenburg v Dryden
Twp, 198 Mich App 696, 699; 499 NW2d 416 (1993).
“The three most common approaches for determining true cash value are the
capitalization-of-income approach, the sales-comparison or market approach, and the cost-lessdepreciation approach.” Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App at 389 (citation
omitted). However, variations, combinations, or new methods are permissible where they are
“accurate and reasonably related to fair market value.” Id. In this case, the parties and tribunal
used the sales comparison approach.1
Petitioner owns two adjacent parcels of real property located in Macomb Township, east
of Broughton Road and south of 25 Mile Road. Each parcel is approximately 40 acres, totaling
81.03 acres; they were assessed separately for taxation purposes. Respondent had valued
petitioner’s property at $75,000 per acre for 2005 and 2006, $65,000 per acre for 2007, and
$60,000 in 2008. Petitioner asserted that the property should be valued at $16,000 for 2008.
Petitioner did not present an appraisal for the years 2005-2007, but offered the testimony of the
owner of Broughton Development, Guirino D’Alessandro. The tribunal concluded that for 2005
1
In Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse, 227 Mich App 379, 391; 576 NW2d 667
(1998), we explained the sales comparison approach:
The sales-comparison or market approach has been described as requiring an
analysis of recent sales of similar properties, a comparison of the sales with the
subject property, and adjustments to the sale prices of the comparable properties
to reflect differences between the properties. Samonek [v Norvell Twp, 208 Mich
App 80,] 84-85[; 527 NW2d 24 (1994)]. It has been described as the only
approach that directly reflects the balance of supply and demand for property in
marketplace trading. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, supra at 353. However, if the
analysis of a comparable sale is flawed, the valuation for the subject property is
also flawed. Antisdale [v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265,] 278-279[; 362 NW2d
632 (1984)].
-2-
and 2006, petitioner’s property should be valued at $75,000 per acre value, and $65,000 per acre
value for 2007. The tribunal held that the 2008 market value was $55,000 per acre.
Petitioner argues that the tribunal failed to determine the highest and best use of
petitioner’s property. However, the record reflects that the parties agreed that the highest and
best use was important in determining the true cash value of petitioner’s property. David D.
Bur’s appraisal, presented by petitioner, indicated that the “highest and best use as vacant is
future residential development.” Moreover, D’Alessandro indicated that he purchased the
property in order to develop it into a residential area. “A party may not take a position in the
trial court and subsequently seek redress in an appellate court that is based on a position contrary
to that taken in the trial court.” Blazer Foods, Inc v Restaurant Properties, Inc, 259 Mich App
241, 252; 673 NW2d 805 (2003). Moreover, it is clear from the tribunal’s opinion that it
considered the highest and best use to be future residential development, because it relied upon
and discussed the valuations and comparison sales presented by respondent’s assessor, Marcia
Smith, and Bur, which in turn were based on the conclusion that the highest and best use was
residential development.
Next, petitioner asserts that the tribunal failed to make detailed findings of fact, which
preclude meaningful appellate review. Oldenburg v Dryden, 198 Mich App 696, 700-701; 499
NW2d 416 (1993). We disagree. The tribunal set forth an 11-page opinion containing a detailed
review of the evidence presented by the parties, its analysis of that evidence, its findings of fact
and law.
Petitioner also argues that the tribunal erred in failing to account for the fact that
petitioner’s property was currently zoned agricultural in analyzing the highest and best use and
failed to adjust for the differences in zoning between the sales comparisons that Smith used.
Petitioner cites extensively from The Appraisal of Real Estate. This resource is not binding on
this Court. See e.g. Danse Corp v Madison Heights, 466 Mich 175, 182; 644 NW2d 721 (2002).
Nonetheless, with respect to zoning, The Appraisal of Real Estate recognizes that uses requiring
zoning changes may be considered when analyzing the highest and best use: “[o]nly when there
is a reasonable possibility that one of the prior, unacceptable conditions can be changed is it
appropriate to proceed with the analysis. If, for example, current zoning does not permit a
potential highest and best use, but there is a reasonable probability that the zoning could be
changed, the proposed use could be considered on that basis.” The Appraisal Institute, The
Appraisal of Real Estate (Chicago: 11th ed, 1996), p 303. See also Teledyne Continental Motors
v Muskegon Twp, 163 Mich App 188, 192; 413 NW2d 700 (1987) (“In determining true cash
value, the assessor must consider the ‘existing use’ of property. MCL 211.27(1). However, this
does not preclude consideration of other potential uses.”)
Although petitioner argues that respondent and the trial court did not make any
adjustments to value based on zoning, we note that petitioner bore the burden of establishing the
true cash value of his property. MCL 205.737(3). In Bur’s appraisal, he did not make any
adjustments to the properties based on differences in zoning for agricultural and residential. The
only adjustment he made to his six selected sample sales was to the third property, which was
zoned for multi-family use. The first and fourth sale properties were zoned residential, and the
second, fifth, and sixth properties were zoned agricultural; there was no adjustment for zoning to
any of these properties. Further, Bur also indicated that although petitioner’s property was zoned
for agricultural use, it was master-planned for “single-family residential development” and
-3-
“[l]egally permissible uses include residential or agricultural use.” Petitioner provided no
evidence on which the tribunal could rely to determine whether to reduce the true cash value of
its property because it was zoned agricultural. The township assessor, Marcia Smith, testified
that the entire township had been agricultural in the past, but was being developed as residential.
More importantly, Bur indicated that “there’s not a significant—maybe even no difference in
value, between a property that’s zoned agricultural and residential as of 12/31/07” because of the
economic downturn and collapse of the real estate market. In addition, Smith testified that the
properties were used in her comparison samples were zoned agricultural at the time of the sale.
Although some of the property record cards reflected zoning designations other than agricultural,
Smith explained that they had been changed, and we defer to the tribunal’s assessment of the
credibility of the evidence. Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App at 408.
In ruling, we note that determining the true cash value of a parcel of property is “not an
exact science”; it involves examining and weighing the values provided by both parties with the
goal of reaching a “well-supported conclusion that reflects the study of all factors that influence
market value” of the property. Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp, 227 Mich App at 398-399
(citations omitted). However, the tribunal is not required by any law “to quantify every possible
factor affecting value.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, the parties both utilized the comparable
sales approach in determining the true cash value of petitioner’s property. The tribunal’s opinion
reflects that it extensively reviewed the parties’ evidence, analysis, selected comparison sales and
adjustments, and conclusions, and determined whether they were reasonable. On the whole, the
tribunal’s findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n, 437 Mich at 482.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Alton T. Davis
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
