-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

KAREN SPRANGER, 

 Petitioner-Appellant, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 12, 2015 

v No. 319273 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

CITY OF WARREN, LC No. 00-449782 

 Respondent-Appellee. 

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and METER and BECKERING, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Plaintiff appeals as of right an order denying her a Principal Residence Exemption (PRE) 

for the 2012 tax year in this residential property tax action. We affirm. 

 Petitioner owns residential property located at 7520 Hudson, in respondent City of 

Warren. Petitioner filed a PRE affidavit on December 16, 2011, claiming that she had lived at 

the subject address since 2001, and respondent initially granted her an exemption for the 2012 

tax year. However, on February 6, 2013, respondent ultimately denied petitioner’s request for a 

PRE for 2012, finding that she did not occupy the property. Petitioner timely appealed that 

denial to the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT). 

 After a hearing, the MTT referee issued a proposed opinion and judgment dated 

September 13, 2013, which recommended that the subject property not be entitled to a PRE 

under MCL 211.7cc. The referee found that water usage is considered a reliable and reasonable 

indicator for determining occupancy of a residence and noted that water records for the property 

showed that the minimum chargeable amount of water was never exceeded from January 2008 

through June 2012. The referee found petitioner’s explanation that she conserves water and uses 

alternative water sources to be unpersuasive. The referee also found that petitioner failed to 

submit utility bills or other reliable evidence to support her contention that she had occupied the 

subject property as her principal residence. 

 Petitioner filed exceptions to the referee’s proposed opinion, arguing that there was 

evidence that neighbors saw her residing in the home, that all of her personal property was in the 

residence, that the absence of water usage was due to a dispute concerning the city’s metering 

protocol, and that she had provided corroborative testimony of other utilities used in the home. 

The tribunal judge considered petitioner’s exceptions but noted that exceptions are limited to 

evidence submitted before or at the hearing and that he would not consider new evidence. On 
-2- 

November 6, 2013, the tribunal judge adopted the referee’s proposed opinion and entered a final 

opinion and judgment finding that petitioner had failed to prove by a preponderance of the 

evidence that she was entitled to an exemption. Petitioner now appeals that final opinion and 

judgment. 

 As stated in Briggs Tax Serv, LLC v Detroit Pub Sch, 485 Mich 69, 75; 780 NW2d 753 

(2010): 

 The standard of review of Tax Tribunal cases is multifaceted. If fraud is 

not claimed, this Court reviews the Tax Tribunal’s decision for misapplication of 

the law or adoption of a wrong principle. We deem the Tax Tribunal’s factual 

findings conclusive if they are supported by “competent, material, and substantial 

evidence on the whole record.” But when statutory interpretation is involved, this 

Court reviews the Tax Tribunal’s decision de novo. [Citations omitted.] 

A petitioner must establish entitlement to a statutory exemption by a preponderance of the 

evidence. ProMed Healthcare v City of Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490, 495; 644 NW2d 47 

(2002). 

 The entitlement to a PRE is governed by statute. MCL 211.7cc(1) provides that “[a] 

principal residence is exempt from the tax levied by a local school district for school operating 

purposes . . . .” MCL 211.7dd(c) defines a “[p]rincipal residence” as “the 1 place where an 

owner of the property has his or her true, fixed, and permanent home to which, whenever absent, 

he or she intends to return and that shall continue as a principal residence until another principal 

residence is established. . . .” A property owner claiming a PRE is required to file an affidavit 

with the local taxing authority attesting that the property is owned and occupied as a principal 

residence. MCL 211.7cc(2). 

 Petitioner argues that the record supported a finding that 7520 Hudson was her primary 

residence and thus she was entitled to a PRE. However, petitioner failed to provide competent, 

material, and substantial evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she actually 

occupied 7520 Hudson as her one true, fixed, and permanent home for the period at issue as 

required to receive a PRE. 

 In James F Roberts v Twp of West Bloomfield, unpublished opinion per curiam of the 

Court of Appeals, issued May 10, 2012 (Docket No. 303098), slip op at 1, the petitioner, James 

Roberts, owned residential property that he used as rental property. After his tenants vacated the 

subject property, Roberts sought to claim the property as his principal residence and sought a 

PRE. Id. In arguing against a PRE, the respondent township relied on photographic evidence 

that showed that the residence’s yard had not been cleaned, that the residence lacked window 

treatments, and that there was a “paucity of furnishings.” Id. at 2. “Most importantly, the 

respondent established that Roberts did not utilize water or sewage services from September 

2007 through May 2009.” Id. at 4. The Court reasoned: 

On appeal, Roberts contends that “[t]here are a myriad number of reasons why 

someone occupying a residence may not use water, including, but not limited to, 

bottled drinking water, showering at a health club, not watering grass, not 
-3- 

cooking, etc.” We find Roberts’ claim patently ridiculous. It is incredible that a 

person could live in a home for 20 months without using the bathroom facilities or 

turning on the kitchen sink, let alone the myriad other reasons a residential 

customer must utilize water and sewage services. [Id. at 5.] 

Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Roberts presented documents that usually help to 

indicate residency (such as his driver’s license, voter registration card, and tax returns listing the 

subject property as his address), those documents were deemed inadequate in light of the other 

evidence presented that indicated that no one, including Roberts, occupied the subject property. 

Id. 

The Roberts ruling is instructive here. While an unpublished opinion does not provide 

binding precedent, it can be used as persuasive analysis. See In re Application of Indiana 

Michigan Power Co, 275 Mich App 369, 380; 738 NW2d 289 (2007); see also Tomiak v 

Hamtramck School District, 426 Mich 678, 698-699; 397 NW2d 770 (1986). Petitioner attempts 

to distinguish Roberts from her case because her property was never rented to tenants and had 

indications of occupancy such as the presence of personal possessions and lawn maintenance. 

However, the “most important[]” determining factor of occupancy set forth in Roberts was water 

and sewer usage, Roberts, unpub op at 4, and petitioner here had extremely little water usage at 

the subject property and no proof of an alternative water source or a reasonable explanation 

about the lack of water usage. Petitioner’s claim that she “live[s] a spartan existence” and her 

arguments relating to the installation of a “smart meter”1

 failed to counter the inference of a lack 

of occupancy due to lack of water usage. 

 We note that, although respondent did primarily rely on petitioner’s lack of water usage 

in denying the PRE, it also presented evidence that petitioner only registered to vote in 

respondent city on July 6, 2011, and the registration showed her as having moved to the city 

from an address in Clinton Township. This information was pertinent to petitioner’s credibility 

because petitioner had previously claimed to have lived at the subject property during the period 

she was registered to vote in Clinton Township. With regard to petitioner’s “rewards” cards 

purportedly listing the subject property as her address, we note that copies of the cards were not 

made part of the record, the criteria for supplying an address were not submitted, and the dates of 

issuance were not supplied. Thus, those cards did nothing to establish petitioner’s occupancy of 

the subject property, and none of petitioner’s remaining evidence proved by a preponderance of 

the evidence that she actually occupied 7520 Hudson as her one true, fixed, and permanent home 

for the period at issue as required to receive a PRE. 

 The MTT’s decision was based on competent, material, and substantial record evidence, 

and thus the MTT acted within its authority when denying the PRE. 

 

1

 Petitioner’s water was turned off because she objected to the installation of a “smart water 

meter” by respondent. We note that this shutoff did not occur until the autumn of 2012, after the 

observed usage of very small amounts of water. 
-4- 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Kathleen Jansen 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter 

/s/ Jane M. Beckering