April 24, 2014

Avoiding an Uncapping of Michigan Property Taxes: Klooster v. City of Charlevoix

A common concern among Michigan homeowners is the dreaded “uncapping” of real estate taxes.  But the rules in this regard are somewhat confusing.  In general, for as long as someone owns a parcel of real estate, the “taxable” value of that property remains “capped” and increases only incrementally from year to year.  However, when property is conveyed to another party, a “transfer of ownership“ usually occurs and the property taxes are uncapped.  Specifically, the transfer of property to children upon the death of the cottage owner is an uncapping event.  In some cases, the uncapping can raise the property taxes so dramatically that the children cannot afford the property, effectively defeating a client’s attempt to keep the cottage in the family.

However, Michigan law currently contains several exceptions to the “transfer of ownership” rule.  Most importantly for cottage planning purposes, a transfer of the property that creates or terminates a joint tenancy, if certain other conditions are met, will not uncap the cottage.  The joint tenancy exception has two requirements:

  1. First, at least one of the joint tenants must have been an original owner – that is, that person must have owned the property before the joint tenancy was created and at the time the property was last uncapped. 
  2. In addition, at least one person involved in the transfer must have been a joint tenant for the entire time that the joint tenancy was in existence. 

The joint tenancy exception was recently confirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court in Klooster v. City of Charlevoix.  In that case, Mr. Klooster’s father was the “original owner” of a parcel of real estate and later created a joint tenancy with Mr. Klooster by adding him to the title of the property.  When Mr. Klooster’s father died, the entire property passed to Mr. Klooster by operation of the joint tenancy.  The court held that Mr. Klooster’s father was an “original owner” and that his death, which terminated the joint tenancy, did not uncap the property taxes for the cottage.  Because Mr. Klooster was not an original owner himself, however, his subsequent creation of a joint tenancy with his brother resulted in an uncapping.

So what does this case mean for cottage owners?  In Klooster, the Supreme Court concluded that “original owners” of property may use certain joint tenancies as a means for transferring property without uncapping property taxes.  However, people must be careful, because, as Klooster demonstrates, not every joint tenancy will allow parties to avoid uncapping.  There is also the possibility that the legislature could change the law to avoid this result.  For the time being, this approach can be an important part of a successful cottage planning strategy to keep your family cottage in the family.  Yet, joint tenancy alone is not the silver bullet.  It won’t solve the other problems related to cottage ownership such as who gets to spend which prime summer weeks at the lake and how the cost of the new roof will be divided among the owners.  In many cases, the concerns regarding the future management of the cottage will outweigh any tax concerns.  Therefore, while Klooster provides an interesting planning tool, one must consider various other options when planning for the family cottage.

© 2014 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Christopher J. Caldwell, Estate Planning Attorney, Varnum law Firm

Chris works intimately with clients and their advisors to create estate plans that enable families to plan for today as well as for future generations. Chris regularly prepares sophisticated estate plans, emphasizing probate avoidance, estate tax planning, and business succession planning. In addition, Chris has an emphasis on helping families with cottage succession planning. Chris's practice also includes a significant focus on post-death planning and estate and trust administration.


About the Author

Laura E. Radle, Varnum Law Firm, Real Estate Attorney

Laura is an associate in the estate planning group with an emphasis on cottage succession planning, and estate and trust administration. Laura is licensed to practice estate planning law in both Michigan and Florida.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.