RPMC Aff Def.pdf

Rpmc 12 Associates, LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Macomb, Respondent · 25-001637-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

RPMC 12 ASSOCIATES, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

MTT Docket No. 25-001637 

Parcel No. 20-08-32-230-012 

MACOMB TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

NOW COMES the Respondent, Macomb Township, by and through its attorneys, York, 

Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and for its Affirmative Defenses, states as follows: 

1. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action 

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, 

discrimination, the application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the 

Respondent. 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property failed to 

conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the 

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 

4. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, 

assessed value and taxable value of its property.

5. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that the 

assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also 

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support is allegations that that the 

property’s taxable value is improper. 

6. 

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was applied to 

the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive 

at the respective equalized assessments. 

7. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal preference 

by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the 

assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. 

8. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of 

action. 

9. 

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 Petitioner’s otherwise 

equitable tax burden. 

10. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established 

its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

11. 

Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new 

Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. 

‘WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees

wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 

/s/ Timothy D. Tomlinson 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com 

Dated: July24, 2025

← View full record