Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

REAL ESTATE 40: Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE).

The Department of Treasury (the Department) denied petitioner’s claim of a principal residence exemption (PRE) under MCL 211.7cc for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 tax years.

The Tax Tribunal determined that petitioner was the owner of the subject residential properties but could not receive the PRE because he did not occupy the properties during the tax years at issue. The Tax Tribunal also determined that petitioner’s wife, a co-owner of the properties, could not claim the PRE because she did not file the required affidavit and, in any event, did not occupy the properties for the tax years at issue.

Though petitioner transferred the properties to a new owner, the Tax Tribunal ruled that petitioner was nonetheless liable for the taxes resulting from the improperly assessed PRE because petitioner conveyed the properties to a bona fide purchaser.

First, petitioner argues that he validly claimed the PRE on behalf of his wife. Second, he argues that as a result of his conveyance of the properties by warranty deed in lieu of foreclosure, the current owner of the properties was not a bona fide purchaser and should be liable for any additional tax, interest, or penalties.

MCL 211.7cc(2) provides that an owner of property can claim the PRE by filing an affidavit that must state that the property is owned and occupied as a principal residence by that owner of the property on the date that the affidavit is signed and shall state that the owner has not claimed a substantially similar exemption, deduction, or credit on property in another state.

Petitioner claimed the PRE by relying on an affidavit that he submitted stating that he owned and occupied the subject properties as his principle residence for tax years 2013-2015. It is undisputed that petitioner did not, in fact, occupy the subject properties as his principle residence in those years. When this came to light, the Department denied the claimed PRE. Petitioner appealed to the Tax Tribunal, contending that his wife occupied the properties as her principle residence, and because he and his wife were co-owners of the properties, they were a single owner, and she did not need to file a separate affidavit for the property to be entitled to a PRE. By the plain language of MCL 211.7cc(2) as defined by MCL 211.7dd(a) and (b), the petitioner cannot claim the exemption on his wife’ behalf.

MCL 211.7cc(8) provides, in relevant part, that if the property has been transferred to a bona fide purchaser before additional taxes were billed to the seller as a result of the denial of a claim for exemption, the taxes, interest, and penalties shall not be a lien on the property and shall not be billed to the bona fide purchaser.

Are you involved in a real estate dispute in Michigan? Are you seeking an efficient and effective resolution to a property litigation matter?

To schedule a free consultation with one of our experienced real estate litigation attorneys, contact our law office in Plymouth, Michigan.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

A Cheap Divorce is Not Worth It

Money is an important factor whenever you work with a professional. When you go through a divorce, your money and time can get even tighter. Hiring a cheap lawyer to handle your case could be attractive. However, they will end up letting you down....

REAL ESTATE 50: Trial court relied upon warranty deed documents that provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement.

In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied upon the 2013 warranty deed documents that twice expressly provided the 2005 Easement superseded the Original Easement. Review of the 2005 Amendment demonstrated that every aspect of the Original Easement was expressly repeated, modified, or omitted. Nothing in the language of the 2005 Amendment suggests that it is intended to be read in conjunction with the Original Easement.

PROBATE 33: Petitioners filed for co-guardianship of each grandchild.

Pursuant to MCL 700.5204(2)(b), in order for a court to consider appointing a guardian, a petitioner must first establish that 1) the parent permits the minor child to reside with another person; 2) the parent does not provide the other person with legal authority for the minor’s care and maintenance; and 3) the minor is not residing with his or her parent when the petition is filed.

What are Replevin Bonds or Surety Bonds?

It would be a wonderful world if people followed through on the agreements they make. There would be less stress, anxiety, and time wasted if people held up their end of a contract 100% of the time. The legal process would run much more smoothly and...

Are Juvenile Records Public or Can They be Expunged?

There is something in most people’s life they regret - if they could redo a moment, they would have done it better. Although there is no physical way to erase the past or redo past wrongs, there is a legal way to prevent some of the crimes...

FAMILY LAW 42: Motion to modify custody denied due to lack of supporting affidavits or documentation.

The lack of substantiation, again and again, could reasonably call into question plaintiff’s motives and credibility on all matters. The trial court appeared more than open to further considering a motion to modify custody if plaintiff would come forward with supporting documentary evidence, explaining why the court took the unusual step of denying the motion without prejudice.

WILLS/TRUSTS 21: Plaintiff alleged the University failed to use the funds consistent with the terms of the trust.

On April 23, 2018, plaintiff filed suit, alleging (1) breach of contract, namely the University’s failure to use the funds consistent with the terms of the Gift Agreement, and seeking damages or specific performance; (2) breach of fiduciary duty, on account of the University’s failure, as trustee of the charitable trust established by Professor’s gift, to comply with the terms and conditions of the resulting charitable trust; (3) violation of the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act, MCL 451.921 et seq.; and (4) the need for injunctive relief prohibiting the dissipation of funds during the pendency of the case.

What is Collaborative Divorce Family Law?

Coming to the end of a happy time is a challenge no one wants to deal with in life. The end of a marriage through a divorce can especially be a tough, emotional, and complicated period. Lawyers and judges deciding your future, remembering important...

FAMILY LAW 41: To minimize disruptive changes in children’s custody, moving party must establish cause or a change of circumstance.

To minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes in children’s custody, a trial court may only modify children’s custody if the moving party first establishes a proper cause or a change of circumstances. The purpose of this framework is to erect a barrier against removal of a child from an established custodial environment and to minimize unwarranted and disruptive changes of custody orders.

DIVORCE 35: Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit are generally considered separate property.

Proceeds received by one spouse in a personal injury lawsuit meant to compensate for pain and suffering, as opposed to lost wages, are generally considered separate property. Moreover, separate assets may lose their character as separate property and transform into marital property if they are commingled with marital assets and treated by the parties as marital property.

4 Common Real Estate Disputes to Watch Out For

Creating a mutually beneficial real estate deal usually goes through smoothly with both sides presenting their interests then negotiating toward a middle ground they can both agree to uphold. Unfortunately, not all deals go through without an issue....

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from community service to fines, to jail or prison...

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405