Kurt Ivory and Kate Ivory 26-000631 Answer to Petition 6-11-26.pdf
Kurt Ivory, Katy Ivory Petitioners Vs. City Of Bloomfield Hills Respondent · 26-000631-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
1 S E C R E S T W A R D L E STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL KURT IVORY AND KATE IVORY, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-000631 -vs- CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________________________/ WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, P.C. Richard E. Rassel (P57540) Attorney for Petitioner 380 N. Old Woodward, Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 642-0333 rer@wwrplaw.com SECREST WARDLE Alana E. Knox (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 aknox@secrestwardle.com _________________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY TAX PETITION (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) NOW COMES Respondent, CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, by and through its attorneys, SECREST WARDLE, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year), states as follows: 1. Answering paragraph 1, Respondent admits that Kurt and Kate Ivory are parties in interest with respect to the property taxes on the parcel of property having tax identification number 12-19-15-126-005, also identified as 1895 Rathmor, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
2 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 2. Answering paragraph 2, Respondent admits that the City of Bloomfield Hills assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 3. Answering paragraph 3, Respondent admits that the subject property having tax identification number 12-19-15-126-005 is classified as 401 Residential Improved and is vacant. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 4. Answering paragraph 4, Respondent admits that the subject property having tax identification number 12-19-15-126-005 is located in Oakland County and the City of Bloomfield Hills School District. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to their proofs. 5. Answering paragraph 5, Respondent admits the same. 6. Answering paragraph 6, Respondent admits that the subject property’s 2026 true cash, assessed value and taxable value on the Respondent’s assessment roll are as follows: which assessed value will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 6 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE ASSESSED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE 12-19-15-126-005 $ 1,837,960 $ 918,980 $ 918,980
Page 3
3 S E C R E S T W A R D L E . 7. Answering paragraph 7, Respondent denies that the subject property’s 2026 true cash, state equalized and taxable values were no higher than: PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE STATE EQUALIZED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE 12-19-15-126-005 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to its proofs. 8. Answering paragraph 8, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to its proofs. 9. Answering paragraph 9, Respondent admits that Petitioners protested the 2026 values at the Bloomfield Hills Board of Review and that the Board of Review affirmed the assessed and taxable values. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to its proofs. 10. Answering paragraph 10, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to its proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition (Entire
Page 4
4 S E C R E S T W A R D L E Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 Dated: June 11, 2026 (248) 851-9500 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For its further Answer to Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent respectfully requests unto this Honorable Tribunal 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, 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 with 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.
Page 5
5 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 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 its allegations 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 which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 9. Petitioner failed to allege to the Board of Review that: A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the City, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. C. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent’s Board of Review constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to Respondent’s Board of review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act.
Page 6
6 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 10. 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. 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased and that Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 Dated: June 11, 2026 (248) 851-9500
Page 7
7 S E C R E S T W A R D L E PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 11, 2026, a copy of the foregoing document, Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition, was filed electronically with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, and was served upon: Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C. Richard E. Rassel, Esq. 380 N. Old Woodward, Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 by depositing same in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon. /s/ Tamera Briggs Tamera Briggs (10784261.1)