25-00377208921320260204152620.pdf
Clare A Mock Declaration Of Trust, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Burr Oak, Respondent · 25-003772-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CLARE A MOCK DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED DECEMBER 11, 1996, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003772 v TOWNSHIP OF BURR OAK, Respondent. Michael J. Caywood (P59905) Robert E. Thall (P46421) Tiffany E. Edwards (P83462) BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, HaasCaywood, PC KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 21 W. Chicago Street 470 W. Centre Ave., Ste. A Coldwater, MI 49036 Portage, MI 49024 (517) 278-4410 269-382-4500 mike@haasscaywood.com thall@michigantownshiplaw.com tiffany@haascaywood.com ANSWER TO PETITION WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Burr Oak Township, states the following in response to the Petition of Appeal filed by Plaintiff. 1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. 2. In response to paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations
Page 2
10. 11. 12. In response to paragraph 4 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 5 of the Petition, Respondent admits allegation therein. In response to paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent admits allegation therein. In response to paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. Subject Property In response to paragraph 8 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 9 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. Underlying Facts In response to paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein.
Page 3
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. In response to paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 15 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 17 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. Uncapping of Taxable Value In response to paragraph 18 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein that the assessor uncapped the taxable value of the property. However, concerning the rest of the allegations, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 19 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 20 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein.
Page 4
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 217. 28. 29. In response to paragraph 22 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 23 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 24 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 25 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 26 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 27 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 28 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 29 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations
Page 5
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Argument Paragraph 30 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations therein. Paragraph 31 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 32 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 33 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 34 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 35 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 36 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 37 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 38 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 39 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 40 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 41 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 42 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 43 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 44 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 45 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. Paragraph 46 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the
Page 6
48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Paragraph 48 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. In response to paragraph 49 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. Paragraph 50 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 51 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. In response to paragraph 52 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 53 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 54 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. Paragraph 55 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 56 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. Paragraph 57 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, Respondent denies the implication by Petitioner contained herein. Paragraph 58 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the
Page 7
60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. Paragraph 60 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, Respondent denies the allegations made herein. Paragraph 61 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be warranted, Respondent denies the implication by Petitioner herein. In response to paragraph 62 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations therein. Paragraph 63 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 64 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 65 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 66 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. In response to paragraph 67 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 68 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to forma a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. No response required. No response required. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal enter an Order denying the relief requested by Petitioner and uphold and affirm the decision of the Township Assessor to
Page 8
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Please take notice that Respondent may rely on one or more of the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner and/or the subject property. 3. The service of process was insufficient. 4. Respondent reserves the right to file such additional affirmative defenses as may become apparent pursuant to discovery procedures during the pendency of this matter. WHEREFORE Respondent requests that the Tribunal enter a determination of no cause in its favor, and such other and further relief as is appropriate including costs and attorney fees. Respectfully submitted, BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER Date: February 4, 2025 Rébert E. Thall, Attornéy for Respondent
Page 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS CLARE A. DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED DECEMBER 11, 1996, Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF BURR OAK, Respondent. MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MTT Docket No. 25-003772 Michael J. Caywood (P59905) Tiffany E. Edwards (P83462) HaasCaywood, PC Attorneys for Petitioner 21 W. Chicago Street Coldwater, MI 49036 (517) 278-4410 mike@haasscaywood.com tiffany(@haascaywood.com Robert E. Thall (P46421) BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C. Attorney for Respondent 470 W. Centre Ave., Ste. A Portage, MI 49024 269-382-4500 thall@michigantownshiplaw.com APPEARANCE The law firm of Bauckham, Thall, Seeber, Kaufman & Koches, P.C., enters this appearance for and on behalf of Respondent, Township of Burr Oak, in this matter. Respectfully submitted, BAUCKHAM, SPARKS, THALL, SEEBER, & KAUFMAN, P.C.
Page 10
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CLARE A. MOCK DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED DECEMBER 11, 1996, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003772 v TOWNSHIP OF BURR OAK, Respondent. Michael J. Caywood (P59905) Robert E. Thall (P46421) Tiffany E. Edwards (P83462) BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, HaasCaywood, PC KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 21 W. Chicago Street 470 W. Centre Ave., Ste. A Coldwater, MI 49036 Portage, MI 49024 (517) 278-4410 269-382-4500 mike@haasscaywood.com thall@michigantownshiplaw.com tiffany@haascaywood.com PROOF OF SERVICE Sandra L. Bosse states that on February 4, 2026, she served a copy of an Appearance, Answer to Petition with Affirmative Defenses and Proof of Service in this matter by first-class mail, postage fully prepaid, upon Petitioner’s Attorneys at the address as listed above. pe ¥4 Apsac Sandra L. Bosse