Respondent's Answer and Aff. Defenses to Amended Pet. 25-002150 - Sugar Tree MV.pdf
Sugar Tree Mv LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Caro, Respondent · 25-002150-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
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SUGAR TREE MV LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF CARO, Respondent. MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002150 PPN: 050-035-000-3100-00 Nicholas J. LeFevre (P62897) SHS GROUP/LEFEVRE ASSOCIATES Attorneys for Petitioner 6120 Trumbull St. Detroit, MI 48208 (313) 583-4200 nick@shsgrp.com Laura J. Genovich (P72278) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 lgenovich@fosterswift.com tdillon@fosterswift.com RESPONDENT CITY OF CARO’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO AMENDED ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, City of Caro, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Amended Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. Property Parcel No.: 050-035-000-3100-00. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1. 2. The property identified above is Real property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2.
Page 2
3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? Intentionally omitted; not applicable. ANSWER: Paragraph 3 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? Intentionally omitted; not applicable. ANSWER: Paragraph 4 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number? Not applicable; no personal property is being appealed. ANSWER: Paragraph 5 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as Commercial. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation of paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s __ March __ July __ December Board of Review. Intentionally omitted; not applicable. ANSWER: Paragraph 7 contains no allegation to which a response is 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: Not applicable; no protest was made or required. ANSWER: Respondent admits that no protest was made. Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s legal conclusion that no protest 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, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue: Not applicable; appeal is timely submitted.
Page 3
ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies that Petitioner’s appeal was timely submitted and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent reserves the right to raise affirmative defenses regarding the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction over the instant appeal. 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Tuscola County. The property or properties’ address is: 1303 Sugar Tree Court, Caro, MI 48723. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local government unit): City of Caro through Tuscola County Equalization Department. ANSWER: Respondent admits that the City of Caro established the assessment of the Subject Property. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 1303 Sugar Tree Court Caro, MI 48723 ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values and the uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation of paragraph 14 of the Petition. 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. Not applicable; only current tax year (2025) is being appealed. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation of paragraph 15 of the Petition.
Page 4
16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 3,401,800 1,700,900 1,700,900 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 $1,098,964 $549,482 $549,482 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 $3,401,800 $1,700,900 $1,700,900 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition as untrue as the values alleged by Petitioner in paragraph 17 are inaccurate. Respondent further denies the allegations in paragraph 18 as being incorrect based on Petitioner’s contended values in paragraph 17. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief: Adjustment of True Cash Value, State Equalized Value, and Taxable Value to the amounts reflected in Paragraph 17 of this Petition and appropriate refunds issued to the extent applicable. ANSWER: Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested for the reason that Petitioner’s amounts do not reflect accurate valuations of the Subject Property. The assessed, state equalized and taxable values were correctly determined and are based upon the correct application of proper principles. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested: a) values of comparable real property; b) condition and overall nature of the property; and c) as shall be discovered and otherwise determined through discovery. ANSWER: Paragraph 20 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. To the extent that paragraph 20 contains any allegation, Respondent denies the allegations
Page 5
contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition as untrue. The assessed, state equalized and taxable values were correctly determined and are based upon the correct application of proper principles. Further, Respondent’s valuation disclosure evidence submitted in MTT Docket No. 24-002195 supports a finding that the assessed and taxable values are understated. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Caro, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 1. 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. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. Petitioner has failed 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. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(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. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8).
Page 6
7. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). 8. Petitioner may have 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. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 10. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Amended Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. Respectfully submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: October 27, 2025 By: ____________________________________ Laura J. Genovich (P72278) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline, N.E., Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 87253:00017:202098941-1