Answer to Petition (Roanoke Villas LLC) (10.07.2026).pdf
Roanoke Villas LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Rochester Hills Respondent · 26-001368-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ROANOKE VILLAS, LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF ROCHESTER HILLS, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001368 Parcel No. 70-15-08-376-001 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JAY A. SCHWARTZ PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION SERVICES, LLC Representative 37887 W. Twelve Mile Road, Suite B Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 672-1922 jschwartz@propertytaxreductionservices.org P. DANIEL CHRIST (P45080) HAFELI STARAN & CHRIST, P.C. Attorney for Respondent 2055 Orchard Lake Road Sylvan Lake, MI 48320-1746 (248) 731-3080 dchrist@hsc-law.com _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent City of Rochester Hills, through its City Attorney, P. Daniel Christ, responds to the allegations made in the Petition, as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Respondent states not more than one parcel of real property is appealed. 4. No response is required because no allegations are set forth. 5. No response is required because no allegations are set forth.
Page 2
2 6. Admitted. 7. No response is required because no allegations are set forth. 8. No response is required because no allegations are set forth. 9. No response is required because no allegations are set forth. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. 13. Admitted, although Respondent denies the issues raised by Petitioner have merit. 14. Admitted. 15. No response is required because no allegations are set forth. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted, although Respondent denies Petitioner’s contesting of value is correct. 18. Respondent acknowledges the values in dispute, but Respondent denies that Petitioner’s contesting of value is correct. 19. Respondent requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization. 20. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, as Respondent’s assessed and taxable values and the corresponding taxes are valid.
Page 3
3 WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Rochester Hills requests the Tribunal to dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. /s/P. Daniel Christ P. DANIEL CHRIST (P45080) Attorneys for Respondent 2055 Orchard Lake Road Sylvan Lake, MI 48320 (248) 731-3080 Dated: October 7, 2026 PROOF OF SERVICE On the date below, I sent by email a copy of the foregoing Answer to Petition to: JAY A. SCHWARTZ PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION SERVICES, LLC 37887 W. Twelve Mile Road, Suite B Farmington Hills, MI 48331 jschwartz@propertytaxreductionservices.org I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/P. Daniel Christ P. Daniel Christ Dated: October 7, 2026