Full record / Whirlwind Capital LLC MTT 26-001450 answer.pdf

Whirlwind Capital LLC MTT 26-001450 answer.pdf

Whirlwind Capital LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit Respondent · 26-001450-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

Page 1

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

WHIRLWIND CAPITAL, LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-001450 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER 

 

 

NOW COMES RESPONDENT, CITY OF DETROIT, by and through its undersigned 

counsel, and in Answer to the Petition filed in this matter states as follows: 

1. Respondent admits. 

2. Respondent admits. 

3. Respondent admits. 

4. Respondent admits. 

5. Respondent admits. 

6. Respondent admits. 

7. Respondent admits. 

8. Respondent admits only that Petitioner’s instant Tax Tribunal appeal alleges issues 

involving the subject property’s true cash, state equalized and taxable values, however, 

Respondent denies that any such allegations have merit. 

9. Respondent admits. 

10. Respondent admits.

Page 2

2 

 

11. Respondent neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation and leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

12. Based solely upon Petitioner’s unsubstantiated value contentions Respondent admits. 

13. Paragraph 13 states Petitioner’s opinion presented as a request for relief and no 

response necessary. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies the 

statement as untrue and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

14. A) Paragraph 14A references a provision of the Detroit City Code which speaks for 

itself and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies Paragraph 14A as Respondent lacks sufficient information to 

form a belief as to the relevance of the allegation in a de novo review of the subject 

property’s assessment before the Tribunal and leaves Petitioner to its proofs; 

B) Paragraph 14B states Petitioner’s opinion presented as fact and no response is 

necessary. To the extent a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies 

Paragraph 14B as Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

C) Paragraph 14C states Petitioner’s opinion presented as fact and no response is 

necessary. To the extent a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies 

Paragraph 14C as Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a 

belief as to the truth of the allegations and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 3

3 

 

D Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 14D as Respondent lacks 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation and 

leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent further asserts that Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by: 

1. Petitioner’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

2. Petitioner has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted. 

3. This Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Detroit respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Tribunal dismiss the Petition in this matter and award costs and attorney fees. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Kevin C. Richard 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin C. Richard (P43417) 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

(313) 237-3061 

 

Dated: September 15, 2026

Page 4

4 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

WHIRLWIND CAPITAL, LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-001450 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On September 15, 2026, I sent by First Class U.S. mail a copy of Respondent’s Answer 

w/Affirmative Defenses in the instant matter to: 

 

Brian C. Summerfield 

Schenk & Bruetsch, PLC 

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 1410 

Detroit, MI. 48226 

 

I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Kevin C. Richard 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin C. Richard (P43417) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senior Assistant Corporation Counsel 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 

Dated: September 15, 2026 

 

Detroit, Michigan 48226

PDF reading copy

← View full record