Featured on mml.org
Legal Defense Fund
Pre-Proposal A legislation defined additions to include all increases in value caused by new construction or a physical addition of equipment and furnishings.
Subsequent to the passage of Proposal A, the Legislature subsequently passed amendments to the statute that provided for several adjustments for additions and also provided for corresponding adjustments for losses. One of the adjustments for additions to taxable value provided that an increase in value caused by an increase in occupancy was an addition if the value attributable to the occupancy rate had been previously allowed as a loss due to a decrease in occupancy. MCL 211.34d(1)(b)(vii).
WPW owned taxable rental property in the city of Troy. It received a reduction in a previous assessment based on a loss of occupancy. The occupancy then increased and the assessed value and taxable value were increased accordingly. The taxable value was increased 13.6 percent, exceeding the cap imposed by Proposal A. WPW asserted that the statute was unconstitutional in purporting to define additions in a way that was inconsistent with the established meaning of that term at the time that it was added by virtue of the passage of Proposal A.
Why did the LDF get involved?
What action did the LDF take?
What was the outcome?
Who prepared the amicus brief?