Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Petition(3598459.1).pdf
Ufp Real Estate LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Grand Rapids Respondent · 26-000905-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
#3598459v1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL _____________________ UFP REAL ESTATE LLC, Petitioner, v Grand Rapids Charter Township, Respondent. _____________________________________/ MTT Docket No. 26-000905 Parcel No. 41-14-14-323-001; 41-14-14-323-002 RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Sarah R. Belloli Ryan, LLC Representative for Petitioner 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com _____________________________________/ Joshua D. Beard (P73388) Mika Meyers PLC Counsel for Respondent 900 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 632-8000 tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com jbeard@mikameyers.com Respondent, Grand Rapids Charter Township, by and through its attorneys, Mika Meyers PLC, answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. Property Parcel No: 41-14-14-323-001; 41-14-14-323-002 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Property Parcel Nos. 41-14-14-323-001 and 41- 14-14-323-002 are the subject of this tax appeal. 2. The properties identified above are real. ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition are admitted. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? X Yes _No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-contiguous parcel.) ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition are admitted.
Page 2
2 #3598459v1 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? _Yes _ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) N/A ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition appear to be inapplicable because this appeal concerns parcels of real, not personal, property and therefore no answer is required. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary). N/A ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition appear to be inapplicable because this appeal concerns parcels of real, not personal, property and therefore no answer is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved. ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 6 of this Petition are admitted because Property Parcel Nos. 41-14-14-323-001 and 41-14-14-323-002 are classified as Commercial-Improved. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s _ March _ July _ December Board of Review. No protest to the Board of Review was required. ANSWER: Respondent admits that no protest to the Board of Review was required. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): N/A
Page 3
3 #3598459v1 ANSWER: Respondent admits that no protest to the Board of Review was required. 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition do not appear to be applicable because Petitioner is not appealing the classification of the subject properties and therefore no answer is required. 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Kent County. The properties’ addresses are: • Parcel 41-14-14-323-001 --- 3310 Eagle Park Dr. NE • Parcel 41-14-14-323-002 --- 3312 Eagle Park Dr. NE All located in Grand Rapids, MI 49525 ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petion are admitted upon information and belief. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Grand Rapids Charter Township. ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition are admitted. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is 2801 East Beltline Ave. NE, Grand Rapids, MI 49525. ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition are admitted upon information and belief. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable):
Page 4
4 #3598459v1 X the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values; ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition are admitted upon information and belief. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition are admitted. 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: The allegations in paragraph 15 of the Petition appear to be inapplicable because it does not appear that Petitioner is attempting to appeal prior tax years and therefore no answer is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year Parcel No. True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 41-14-14-323-001 $2,155,600 $1,077,800 $1,046,765 2026 41-14-14-323-002 $2,094,800 $1,047,400 $1,017,542 Total $4,250,400 $2,125,200 $2,064,307 ANSWER: The allegations contained in paragraph 16 of this Petition are admitted as the true cash, assessed and taxable values on the tax roll. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year Parcel No. True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 41-14-14-323-001 $1,550,000 $775,000 $775,000 2026 41-14-14-323-002 $1,550,000 $775,000 $775,000 Total $3,100,000 $1,550,000 $1,550,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits that the allegations contained in paragraph 17 constitute Petitioner’s 2026 value contentions for the properties. However, Respondent
Page 5
5 #3598459v1 denies as untrue that Petitioner’s contentions accurately reflect the true cash, assessed, and taxable values for the properties. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year Parcel No. True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 41-14-14-323-001 $605,600 $302,800 $271,765 2026 41-14-14-323-002 $544,800 $272,400 $242,542 Total $1,150,400 $575,200 $514,307 ANSWER: Respondent admits that based upon Petitioner’s contentions of value, the allegations in paragraph 18 related to the true cash, assessed and taxable values appear to reflect the values in dispute. However, Respondent denies as untrue that Petitioner’s value contentions accurately reflect the true cash, assessed, and taxable values for the properties at issue. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Petitioner respectfully requests the Michigan Tax Tribunal enter an order: (a) reducing the 2026 True Cash Value, State Equalized Value, and Taxable Value of the subject property to the values set forth in paragraph 17 above; (b) directing Respondent to refund to Petitioner all taxes paid in excess of those properly owed, plus statutory interest; and (c) granting such other and further relief as is just and equitable. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of this Petition because the allegations merely constitute Petitioner’s request for relief and no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the allegations contained in paragraphs 17 and 19 of this Petition are denied as untrue, as Respondent believes that the values currently on the tax roll accurately reflect the true cash, state equalized, assessed and taxable values for the properties at issue, such that no reduction in value and no refund are warranted.
Page 6
6 #3598459v1 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): A. The equalized assessment thus imposed on the subject property is more than 50% of its true cash value in violation of the applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The assessment is based on improper or inaccurate valuation methodology, including but not limited to the use of non-representative data, failure to account for relevant property characteristics, and/or application of incorrect assumptions. As a result, the assessment is not uniform with comparable properties and results in an excessive and unlawful tax burden. ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal affirm the true cash, assessed, state equalized and taxable value of the subject properties as placed on the 2026 and subsequent tax rolls by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and grant Respondent its costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, MIKA MEYERS PLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: August 10, 2026 By: /s/ Joshua D. Beard Joshua D. Beard (P73388) 900 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 632-8000 tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com
Page 7
7 #3598459v1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Grand Rapids Charter Township, through its attorneys, Mika Meyers PLC, in defense of UFP Real Estate LLC’s Petition, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Petitioner may not be a party in interest in this tax appeal and may lack standing to bring this appeal. 3. Petitioner’s tax appeal may be time-barred if Petitioner failed to comply with MCL 205.735a, or otherwise failed to timely file its tax appeal, or both. 4. Respondent reserves the right to add to these defenses. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal affirm the true cash, assessed, state equalized and taxable value of the subject properties as placed on the 2026 and subsequent tax rolls by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and grant Respondent its costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, MIKA MEYERS PLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: August 10, 2026 By: /s/ Joshua D. Beard Joshua D. Beard (P73388) 900 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 632-8000 tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com