City of Detroit v. State Tax Comm

3 Citing cases

  1. Henal Realty Co. v. Brownstown Township

    282 N.W.2d 325 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 2 times

    This type of "split" can be made by the State Tax Commission under MCL 211.152; MSA 7.210. See Detroit v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich. 508, 513; 120 N.W.2d 258 (1963). In the present case, it is alleged that the split was made by Brownstown Township, Conceivably, this could have been done pursuant to MCL 211.24; MSA 7.24 which requires the assessor to assess as one parcel "[a]ll contiguous subdivisions of any section that are owned by 1 person, firm or corporation * * * unless demand in writing is made by the owner or occupant to have each subdivision of the section or each lot assessed separately".

  2. Barnes v. City of Detroit

    379 Mich. 169 (Mich. 1967)   Cited 9 times

    "An undivided interest is just as much a separate estate as a divided one, and the law so regards it." This Court held in City of Detroit v. State Tax Commission, 369 Mich. 508, in a unanimous opinion, that the board of assessors may not refuse, when requested, separate assessments to individual owners without legal justification. We conclude that plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the veteran's exemption and to the separate assessment.

  3. Parshall v. Detroit Treasurer

    33 Mich. App. 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)

    In 1961 the State Tax Commission held hearings and ordered the land divided into five parcels with the assessed value prorated. This action was unanimously affirmed in City of Detroit v. State Tax Commission (1963), 369 Mich. 508. On January 30, 1962, the owners of parcel 5 instituted a mandamus action in the Wayne County Circuit Court against the city and county treasurers and the Detroit Board of Assessors to compel the assessment of their parcel separately. By order entered February 26, 1962, the owners of parcels 6 to 9, inclusive, plaintiffs herein, were allowed to intervene as parties plaintiff.