Charitable institution property tax exemption (MCL 211.7o); Qualifying as a charitable institution; Wexford Med Group v City of Cadillac; Entity performing consolidated administrative duties for nonprofit hospitals; Hospital Purchasing Serv of MI v City of Hastings; Occupancy of the property; Liberty Hill Hous Corp v City of Livonia; Award of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) for a tax year unsupported by any evidence; Tax Tribunal (TT)

The court held that the TT did not err in finding no genuine issue of material fact existed that petitioners are charitable institutions, but did err in granting summary disposition as to the charitable institution exemption’s occupancy requirement beyond petitioner-Hospital’s use of 5,381 square feet of the commercial building at issue. It also erred in granting summary disposition as to tax year 2022 when it was not included in the summary disposition motion and no evidence was presented for that year. Thus, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part as to tax years 2020 and 2021, and reversed as to tax year 2022. Petitioner-Trinity Health-Michigan, a nonprofit hospital, owns the 115,996-square-foot building on land located in respondent-City. Petitioner-Trinity Health Corporation, its parent-nonprofit organization, started using the building in 2019. The issues on appeal were whether they “were nonprofit charities and whether they occupied the property for their incorporated purposes.” As to the first issue, the court noted that it held in Hospital Purchasing in 1968 “that an entity that performs consolidated administrative duties for nonprofit hospitals may constitute a charity.” It saw no reason to depart from that holding and followed it as binding. It further concluded that, taken “together, the Wexford factors show that petitioners are charitable institutions under MCL 211.7o.” As to the occupancy issue, it found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as “to the extent of petitioners’ occupancy—specifically, whether [they] occupied the entire portion of the property or left some portion as dedicated vacant space.” Before 2019, much of it was “vacant and on the city’s tax rolls.” Based on the record, it was possible that after the Corporation entered the property, it “actually occupied the entire remaining portion of 110,615 square feet; it is also equally possible that [it] actually occupied some subset of this square footage and that a portion of what was vacant” before 2019 remained so in 2020 and 2021. Thus, while the Hospital “established that it occupied 5,381 square feet of the property solely for its charitable purpose,” entitling it to summary disposition as to that portion, a question of material fact existed as to the remaining square feet “on whether either petitioner actually occupied the space.”