Appearance, Answer & Affirmative Defenses and POS.pdf

Flagstar Bank, N.A., Petitioner Vs. City Of Marquette, Respondent · 25-001691-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.

1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A. 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001691 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0400420 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Larsen (P57017) 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

 

 

 

 

City of Marquette 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

(248) 767-9840 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

Attorney for Petition 

 

 

 

 

 

(906) 225-8563 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

slarsen@marquettemi.gov 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

 

NOW COMES Suzanne C. Larsen, City Attorney, and hereby enters her Appearance on 

behalf of the Respondent, City of Marquette, in the above cause. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

Dated: 

September 29, 2025 

 

By: Suzanne C. Larsen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen (P57017) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Attorney – City of Marquette 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855

2 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A. 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001691 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0400420 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Larsen (P57017) 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

 

 

 

 

City of Marquette 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

(248) 767-9840 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

Attorney for Petition 

 

 

 

 

 

(906) 225-8563 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

slarsen@marquettemi.gov 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent City of Marquette, by and through its attorney, Suzanne C. 

Larsen, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Petition states as follows: 

 

1. 

Petitioner’s principal office address is 5151 Corporate Dr., Troy, MI 48098. Petitioner is 

a party in interest with respect to property taxes on real property tax parcel no. 0400420 

(“Petitioner’s Property”), at 1324 N Third St., Marquette, MI. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the 

corresponding paragraph of the Petition, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. 

Respondent, City of Marquette assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner’s 

Property. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

3. 

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner’s Property to be $345,894 

and assessed Petitioner’s Property at $525,400 resulting in a state equalized value of the 

same amount based on the tentative equalization factor.

3 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

4. 

Petitioner’s Property is classified as Commercial Real Property. Petitioner’s Property is 

an office Building. Petitioner believes that Petitioner’s Property was originally designed 

to be used for commercial purposes. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies what Petitioner’s belief is, but 

admits that the property is classified as commercial real property. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value, and 

(d) uniformity. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the 

corresponding paragraph of the Petition, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative 

to the value of a loss. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies what Petitioner’s belief is, but 

denies that the taxable value is inaccurately assessed. 

 

7. 

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on 

Petitioner’s Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and 

unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the 

amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at higher 

percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution 

and applicable statutes; 

 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are based 

upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of the 

petitioner’s Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the 

application of wrong principles; and 

 

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode 

of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process 

of law. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition and further states that the current True Cash, Assessed and 

Taxable Values are correctly assessed.

4 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent City of Marquette, by and through its attorney, Suzanne C. 

Larsen, and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 

 

1. The appeal is barred for untimeliness. 

 

2. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those 

methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 

 

3. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) and (8), including, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: 

 

a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (3)(f). 

 

b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter 

jurisdiction or Petitioner’s standing. 

 

c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. 

 

d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. 

 

e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 

 

4. Petitioner is not a proper party-in-interest pursuant to MCR 2.116(c)(4), (5), and (8). 

 

5. Petitioner does not have standing to appeal pursuant to MCR 2.116(c)(4), (5), and (8). 

 

6. The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to MCR 2.116 

(c)(4) and (8). 

 

7. Petitioner has failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report 

or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were 

delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and 

Respondent should be awarded damages. 

 

8. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become 

known to it through discovery in this matter.

5 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable 

values as properly determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs 

and attorney fees, and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

Date: 

September 29, 2025 

 

By: Suzanne C. Larsen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen (P57017) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Attorney – City of Marquette 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855

6 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

FLAGSTAR BANK, .N.A. 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001691 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0400420 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Aaron M. Fales (P72864) 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Larsen (P57017) 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

 

 

 

 

City of Marquette 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

(248) 767-9840 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

Attorney for Petition 

 

 

 

 

 

(906) 225-8563 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

slarsen@marquettemi.gov 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 29, 2025 a copy of the following 

documents: Appearance, and Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses were served on: 

 

Aaron M. Fales 

330 Hamilton Row, Ste. 350 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

 

by enclosing the same in a properly addressed, sealed envelope, with first class postage fully 

prepaid, and by depositing the envelope in the United States mail. 

 

 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and 

belief. 

 

 

 

Dated: September 29, 2025 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen

← View full record