Answer Eschaton LLC 26-000046.pdf

Eschaton LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000046-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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

ESCHATON, LLC , 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-000046 -TT 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 03003238 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION and 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Now Comes Respondent, City of Detroit, by and through it undersigned counsel and in Answer 

to the Petition filed in this matter states the following: 

1. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS 

 

1. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits as true. 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

4. Respondent admits as true. 

2. Nature of Appeal ( LIMITED) 

1. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

3. Subject Property Information . 

 

1. Respondent admits that the subject property information is listed correctly.

2 

 

 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

 

3. Respondent admits as true. 

 

4. Respondent admits as true. 

 

5. Respondent admits as true these valuations. 

4. Issues Presented 

COUNT I- Improper Denial of Non-Profit Exemption 

1. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits the allegations in the corresponding paragraph as 

true. 

2. Respondent denies as untrue. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

Respondent objects to Petitioner’s request for reinstatement of exempt status for tax year 2025. 

 COUNT II- Improper Use of “Clerical Error /Mutual Mistake “Authority 

1. Respondent denies as untrue. 

2. Respondent denies as untrue. 

3. Respondent denies as untrue. 

4. Respondent denies as untrue. 

Respondent requests denial of Petitioner’s reversal of the BOR “correction.” 

 COUNT III - Lack of Statutory Qualified Error 

1. Respondent admits that this is a statutory requirement but denies that the BOR acted 

in violation of the statute.

3 

 

2. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 5. Relief Requested 

 Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss this Appeals and award fees and cost 

 

6. Related Circuit Court Case 

1. Respondent admits that the Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 25-015101-CB is 

pending, but the Court has scheduled the Defendant, City of Detroit Motion for 

Summary Disposition for April 15,2026. 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

3. Respondent admits as true and further avers that exclusive jurisdiction is before the 

Tribunal. 

4. Respondent admits as true. 

CONCLUSION and REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. 

Dated: April 14, 2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin C. Richard ( P 43417) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226

4 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, City of Detroit, and asserts the following Affirmative 

Defenses to the Petitioner’s claims: 

1. 

Petitioner’s lacks standing and/or capacity to bring forth this Petition. 

2. 

Petitioner’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

3. 

This Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

 

4. 

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

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. 

Dated: 

April 14, 2026 

 

/s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kevin C. Richard ( P 43417) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313.237.3075 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cobbm@detroitmi.gov

5 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

ESCHATON, LLC , 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-00046 -TT 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 03003238 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On April 14, 2026, I mailed by first class mail a copy of Respondent’s Answer to: 

 

 

 

Darwyn P. Fair Law, PLLC 

Darwyn P. Fair 

535 Griswold, Suite 111-554 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

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

belief. 

 

Dated: April 14,2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226

6

← View full record