Menard, Inc. v. City of Escanaba
Michigan Court of Appeals
891 N.W.2d 1, 315 Mich. App. 512 (2016)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Menard, Inc. (plaintiff) owned a 167,000-square-foot big-box store (the store) in Escanaba, Michigan. For property-tax purposes, the city of Escanaba (defendant) valued the store at approximately $8 million. To make its valuation, Escanaba used a cost-less-depreciation approach, looking at Menard’s cost of building the store and subtracting the store’s depreciation each year. Menard filed a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal (the tribunal) appealing Escanaba’s valuation. To support its argument, Menard submitted an alternate valuation made by Joseph Torzewski, a commercial real estate appraiser, who valued the store at $3.3 million. Torzewski used a sales-comparison approach for his valuation. Though Escanaba was located in northwest Michigan, Torzewski compared the store to eight large retail stores sold in southeast Michigan because no comparable buildings could be found in the northwest portion of the state. All eight comparables had deed restrictions, but Torzewski did not make adjustments for those deed restrictions in his valuation of the Menard store, which did not have any deed restrictions. The tribunal found for Menard, holding that Torzewski’s sales-comparison approach was the correct valuation method to use in the case. The tribunal further held that a cost-less-depreciation approach was improper in the case because it did not factor in the difficulty of reselling standalone retail stores and the likelihood that future buyers would have to make significant changes to the building to fit their needs. Escanaba appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.