26-001231.pdf
Meijer Inc Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing Respondent · 26-001231-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
RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2026 STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MEIJER, INC. Petitioner v MOAHR Docket 26-001231 Parcel No. 33-01-05-10-101-012 CITY OF LANSING, Respondent Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor 124 W. Michigan Avenue 3rd Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4136 Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RESPONDENT, the City of Lansing, through its Assessor, Jennifer Hendrix, hereby responds to the allegations made in Petitioner's Petition as follows: 1. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 1. The owner of record is Meijer, Inc, 2929 Walker Ave, NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49544-6402. The subject address is 6200 S. Pennsylvania, Lansing, Ingham County Michigan 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
Page 2
MTT Docket # 26-001231 5. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 for reason that they do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. 6. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 for reason that they do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. 7. Petitioner has not set forth any allegations to warrant a response. No March Board of Review was filed. 8. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for the reason that it is untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax year and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. 9. The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value Taxable Value 33-01-05-10-101-012 $11,952,200 $5,976,100 $5,401,973 10. Respondent contends that the 2026 values for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 33-01-05-10-101-012 $11,952,200 $5,976,100 $5,401,973 11. The 2026 values in dispute for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value | Taxable Value 33-01-05-10-101-012 $0 $0 $0 WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Lansing respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal
Page 3
MTT Docket # 26-001231 OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR CITY OF LANSING . Dated: ¥ ii. By: Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor, City of Lansing 3d Floor, City Hall 124 W Michigan Ave Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4136 Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov
Page 4
MTT Docket # 26-001231 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the following affirmative defenses: A. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s claim for relief. B. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). C. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). D. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or its agents. E. Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. F. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. G. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s
Page 5
MTT Docket # 26-001231 I. Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. J. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. K. . Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioners otherwise equitable tax burden. L. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. M. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR CITY OF LANSING eo Dated: 9 (4, By: Toniter “Hendi ix, Ad City Assessor, City of Lansing 3d Floor, City Hall 124 W Michigan Ave Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4136
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR MEIER, ING , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No. 26-001231 CITY OF LANSING , Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE JENNIFER HENDRIX, MMAO states that on Rl I] | Z lr he/she [Name of person serving/mailing petition] [date of service] served a copy of the ANSWER relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] MTT P.O. BOX 30232, LANSING MI 48909 AND DANIEL STANLEY 222 N WASHINGTON SQ, STE 400 LANSING, MI 48933 anno. oud ud 7 A [Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] JENNIFER HENDRIX, MMAO [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]
Page 7
ASSESSOR 3RD FLOOR, CITY HALL 124 W. MICHIGAN AVENUE CITY OF LANSING LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 | MTT Fo. Box 3063233 L ANS (all AY 45909 Received AUG 21 2026 LARA CLF-FME ASE LS FLEET PERL PETE LEY EY FT LE EY FT ETA EB BTR LT