Fisher v. Sunfield Tp., Docket No. 94592

• Decision Date: 24 November 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 94592
• Parties: John F. FISHER and Sandra Fisher, Petitioners-Appellants, v. SUNFIELD TOWNSHIP, Respondent-Appellee. 163 Mich.App. 735, 415 N.W.2d 297
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 297

415 N.W.2d 297

John F. FISHER and Sandra Fisher, Petitioners-Appellants, v. SUNFIELD TOWNSHIP, Respondent-Appellee.

Docket No. 94592.

163 Mich.App. 735, 415 N.W.2d 297

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 29, 1987.

Decided Oct. 19, 1987.

Released for Publication Nov. 24, 1987.

[163 MICHAPP 736] Reid, Reid, Perry, Lasky, Hollander & Chalmers, P.C. by Michael H. Perry, Lansing, for petitioners.

Bauckham, Reed, Lang, Sparks, Rolfe & Thomsen, P.C. by Linda E. Thompson, Kalamazoo, for respondent.

Before CYNAR, P.J., and WEAVER and HAUSNER, ^* JJ.

CYNAR, Presiding Judge.

Petitioners appeal as of right from an August 4, 1986, decision of the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

[163 MICHAPP 737] Although the testimony at the Tax Tribunal hearing was not transcribed, the facts are not in material dispute. Petitioners' home was built in 1865. The entire parcel of property contains 9.98 acres, outbuildings, a house, and a well and septic system. The property has been in Mrs. Fisher's family since 1855. Originally, the property was a Centennial farm.

After Sandra's grandmother left the home, petitioners began to restore it. The total cost of restoration amounted to $49,700 and included the following items: (1) outside painting of the home; (2) repairing or replacing siding; (3) repairing or replacing the roof; (4) repairing or replacing the porch; (5) repainting, repairing or replacing the existing masonry; (6) adding or replacing gutters or downspouts; (7) replacing storm windows and doors; (8) installing insulation and weather stripping; (9) rewiring; (10) replacing plumbing fixtures; (11) replacing light fixtures (included in rewiring); (12) replacing the furnace; (13) painting the interior; (14) installing cabinets; (15) replacing the inside ceilings and walls; (16) replacing the floor surfaces; (17) removing partitions; (18) replacing the water heater (included in replacement of plumbing fixtures); and (19) replacing dated interior woodwork. Petitioners also added more living space, the assessed value of which is not in dispute.

The Fishers submitted a request for nonconsideration of normal repair and maintenance expenditures pursuant to the home improvement act, M.C.L. Sec. 211.27; M.S.A. Sec. 7.27, for the 1983 tax year. The form signed by Mr. Fisher itemized the costs of the repairs totalling $49,700 as expenditures which were not part of the structural addition. The form assessed the estimated value of the home after repair and maintenance as $32,750, before repair [163 MICHAPP 738] and maintenance as $10,000, and the value of repair and maintenance for nonconsideration came to $6,550.

In response to the Fishers' request for nonconsideration, the township gave petitioners a credit of $6,550 for the cost of the new roof, siding and windows. For 1984, respondent increased this credit to $9,000. The township rejected the remainder of petitioners' expenditures on the basis that they were not for improvements which would constitute "normal maintenance" within the meaning of the act because those additional improvements changed the character of the property and greatly extended its useful life. The respondent argues that the remainder of the improvements constitute a betterment of the property.

The 1983 assessment was based upon a cash value of $46,950. The 1984 assessment was based upon a cash value of $56,750. Petitioners maintained that the entire cost of repairs amounting to $49,700 should be excluded from consideration in the 1983 and 1984 determination of the true cash value of the property.

Subsequently on March 15, 1983, petitioners appealed the 1983 and 1984 tax assessments to the township board of review. The board ruled against petitioners and upheld the assessments.

Thereafter, the Fishers filed in the Tax Tribunal a petition for review of the board's decision. A hearing referee in the Tax Tribunal's Small Claims Division affirmed the board's decision which had established an assessed value of $23,475 for 1983 and $28,375 for 1984.

Following a rehearing, the Tax Tribunal ordered that the judgment of the hearing referee entered November 28, 1984, be vacated and dismissed the cause. The Tax Tribunal determined that the value of the improvements listed in the act, rather [163 MICHAPP 739] than the actual expenditures for the improvements, should be used for nonconsideration in figuring the true cash value of the property. The Tax Tribunal concluded that the Fishers had failed to meet their burden of proving how much the value of the property had been enhanced. From this decision, petitioners appeal.

Petitioners claim that the Tax Tribunal's decision should be reversed because the Tax Tribunal had adopted a wrong principle in its construction of the language of the act, the Tax Tribunal's decision was contrary to the act's common-law meaning, and the Tax Tribunal's decision was not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence.

In their first ground for error, petitioners maintain that the Tax Tribunal adopted a wrong principle and committed a legal error when it relied upon matters outside of the act and interpreted provisions of the act contrary to their clear, definite and easily understood meaning.

M.C.L. Sec. 211.27(2); M.S.A. Sec. 7.27(2) provides:

"(2) The assessor, beginning December 31, 1976, shall not consider expenditures for normal repairs, replacement, and maintenance in determining the true cash value of property for assessment purposes until the property is sold. Value attributable to the items included in subdivisions (a) to (o) which is known to the assessor and excluded from true cash value shall be indicated on the assessment roll. This subsection shall apply only to residential property. The following repairs shall be considered normal maintenance if they are not part of a structural addition or completion:

"(a) Outside painting.

"(b) Repairing or replacing siding, roof, porches, steps, sidewalks, and drives.

"(c) Repainting, repairing, or replacing existing masonry.

[163 MICHAPP 740] "(d) Replacement of awnings.

"(e) Adding or replacing gutters and downspouts.

"(f) Replacing storm windows or doors.

"(g) Insulation or weatherstripping.

"(h) Complete rewiring.

"(i) Replacing plumbing and light fixtures.

"(j) New furnace replacing a furnace of the same type or replacing oil or gas burner.

"(k) Plaster repairs, inside painting, or other redecorating.

"(l) New ceiling, wall, or floor surfacing.

"(m) Removing partitions to enlarge rooms.

"(n) Replacing automatic hot water heater.

"(o) Replacing dated interior woodwork." (Emphasis added.)

The emphasized portion of the statute is in dispute. Petitioners argue that, in accordance with the plain language of the statute, the actual expenditures should be utilized for nonconsideration in determining the true cash value. Respondent contends that it is the contribution to the total cash value of the property which is to be excluded.

We agree with petitioners' construction of the statute. The rules of statutory construction were concisely set forth in Nicholas v. Michigan State Employees Retirement Board, 144 Mich.App. 70, 74, 372 N.W.2d 685 (1985):

"(1) [W]hen a statute is unambiguous, further construction is to be avoided; (2) if an ambiguity exists, the intent of the Legislature must be given effect; (3) a construction which best accomplishes the statute's purpose is favored; (4) statutes are to be interpreted...