PETER KARMANOS V CITY OF ORCHARD LAKE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PETER KARMANOS,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 1997
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
Nos. 191561;191945
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC Nos. 00222053;0022051;
0022054
CITY OF ORCHARD LAKE VILLAGE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Taylor, P.J., and McDonald and C. J. Sindt,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, petitioner appeals as of right from three Michigan Tax Tribunal
judgments denying revisions to the 1995 assessments of three of his lots in the City of Orchard Lake
Village. We affirm.
Petitioner owns three contiguous lots on Cass Lake and a fourth across the road from the
others. The center lot of the three lake front parcels contains petitioner’s residence. The house lot,
bearing Sidwell no. 18-10-101-008 (hereinafter referred to as “parcel 008”), was valued by
respondent at $1,200,980 for 1995. Petitioner appealed this assessment value to the Tax Tribunal
claiming that the property’s true cash value should be $850,000. The tribunal found the true cash value
to be $1,200,980 and, therefore, denied petitioner’s request for revision of the 1995 assessment.
The parcel located to the right of the house lot, bearing Sidwell no. 18-10-101-037 (hereinafter
referred to as “parcel 037”), is vacant except for a driveway, and was valued at $496,820 for 1995.
Petitioner appealed this assessment value to the Tax Tribunal claiming that the true cash value of the
property was only $300,000. The tribunal found the true cash value to be $496,820 and, therefore,
denied petitioner’s request for revision of the 1995 assessment.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
The parcel located across the road, bearing Sidwell no. 18-10-101-001 (hereinafter referred to
as “parcel 001”), is vacant except for a storage shed and concrete pad. Parcel 001 was valued at
$230,340 for 1995. Petitioner appealed this assessment value to the Tax Tribunal claiming that the true
cash value of the property was only $213,840. The tribunal found the true cash value to be $230,340
and, therefore, denied petitioner’s request for revision of the 1995 assessment.
From the three judgments of the Tax Tribunal, petitioner filed the instant appeal claiming that the
tribunal erred in determining that no revision to the assessed values were required. We disagree.
Where fraud is not alleged, a decision of the Tax Tribunal is reviewed by this Court to
determine whether the tribunal erred in applying the law or adopted a wrong legal principle. Comcast v
Sterling Heights, 218 Mich App 8, 11; 553 NW2d 627 (1996); Maxitrol Co v Treasury Dep’t, 217
Mich App 366, 370; 551 NW2d 471 (1996). Factual findings of the tribunal are final, so long as they
are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Comcast, supra
at 11. “Substantial evidence” means more than a scintilla, yet less than a preponderance of evidence.
Fairplains Twp v Montcalm Comm’rs, 214 Mich App 365, 372; 542 NW2d 897 (1995).
In a challenge to the assessment of property, the taxpayer carries the burden of proof to
establish the true cash value of the property. MCL 205.737(3); MSA 7.650(37)(3); Samonek v
Norvell Twp, 208 Mich App 80, 84; 527 NW2d 24 (1994). True cash value means fair market value
and is typically determined by using (1) the cost less depreciation method; (2) the sales comparison
method; or (3) the capitalization of income method. Id. Regardless of the method utilized, the value
determined must represent the usual price for which the property would sell. Id.
In the present case, for each parcel the petitioner presented evidence of the assessed values of
comparable properties in the area to support his conclusion that his property should be assessed at a
similar level. Petitioner argues that the assessed values are derived from market information and
therefore are evidence of the market price of his property. In contrast, respondent presented evidence
of actual sales of comparable properties as evidence of the value of plaintiff’s properties.
The Tax Tribunal found respondent’s method of presenting actual sales figures to be the most
accurate method of determining the properties’ true cash value. The tribunal found that parcel 008 had
a true cash value of $1,200,980. This finding was supported by evidence of four recent sales of
comparable properties. The tribunal found that parcel 037 had a true cash value of $496,820. This
finding was supported by evidence of seven recent sales of comparable properties. Finally, the tribunal
found that parcel 001 had a true cash value of $230,340. This was based on two recent sales of
comparable properties. The tribunal’s findings are supported by competent, material, and substantial
evidence. Therefore, these findings are final. Comcast, supra at 11.
Petitioner also argues that reversal is required because the tribunal failed to make a “concise
statement of facts and conclusions of law” as required by MCL 205.751(1); MSA 7.650(51)(1). To
the contrary, the tribunal’s opinions in each case set forth sufficient factual statements and set forth with
specificity the tribunal’s legal conclusions based on those facts. Moreover, it is clear from the opinions
-2
that the tribunal considered the evidence presented by petitioner, but found it insufficient and
unpersuasive in establishing the true cash value of the properties as purported by petitioner. Contrary to
petitioner’s assertions, we find no indication that the tribunal automatically accepted respondent’s
valuations. Rather, the record indicates that the tribunal made an independent determination of true cash
value with respect to each parcel. See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich
App 348, 355; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). Finally, the respondent presented evidence that it utilized the
same criteria and formulas for assessing all property in the district as required by MCL 205.737(3);
MSA 7.650(37)(3). Therefore, we find no misapplication of law in the tribunal’s judgments concerning
the three parcels.
Affirmed.
/s/ Clifford W. Taylor
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Conrad J. Sindt
-3
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.