|
No. 132466
| Toll Northville, Ltd, and Biltmore Wineman, LLC, |
|
Myles B. Hoffert |
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
David B. Marmon |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Murphy, John) |
|
|
| Township of Northville, |
|
Robert E. Thall |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Michigan Association of Home Builders' Amicus Curiae Brief >>
Michigan Association of Realtors' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan State Tax Commission's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Townships Association, Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Assessors Association,
and the Michigan Association of School Boards' Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
Toll Northville, Ltd. and Biltmore Wineman, LLC, develop raw land into residential lots within the township of Northville. Relying on MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(viii), part of the enabling legislation for 1994 Proposal A (which capped increases in taxable value of real property), the township increased the two developers’ property tax assessments for 2001 and 2002. The township reasoned that “public service” improvements (such as water service, sewer service, utility service) were “additions” to the property within the meaning of Proposal A that allowed for increased taxation of the property. But Toll Northville and Biltmore Wineman claim that the meaning of “additions” in 1994, when Proposal A was passed, did not include public service improvements, and that therefore the Legislature’s effort to define “additions” to include improvements for “public services” (i.e., MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(viii)) should be struck down as unconstitutional. The township argues that “additions” is a term of art that had been consistently construed to include “public services” long before 1994. The developers challenged their tax assessments before the Michigan Tax Tribunal, but the Tribunal stayed its proceedings so that this declaratory action regarding the statute’s constitutionality could proceed in circuit court. The circuit court ruled that the statute is unconstitutional because it taxes improvements to real property beyond the meaning of “additions” when Proposal A passed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in a published opinion. The township appeals.
Top of Page
|
