Answer_NW & Franklin_FINAL.pdf

Nw & Franklin LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield Respondent · 26-001332-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 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

NW & FRANKLIN LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001332 

Parcel No. 76-24-18-276-043 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

STEVE JOHNSON 

MICHIGAN TAX APPEAL SERVICES 

Representative for Petitioner 

436 N. Center Street 

Northville, MI 48167 

(248) 392-4342 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent, City of Southfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 as no claim is 

made.

Page 2

Respondent denies any implication a parcel of personal property has been identified

as under appeal.

Respondent admits only one parcel of real property has been identified as under

appeal.

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6.

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 as no claim is

made.

Respondent neither admits nor denies the necessity of a protest to the Board of

Review as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself.

Respondent neither admits nor denies the timeliness of Petitioner’s Petition as

Petitioner’s Petition and the General Property Tax Act speak for themselves.

10.

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10.

11.

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11.

12.

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

13.

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but

denies that those issues have merit and further denies any implication Petitioner is entitled to relief.

14.

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2026 tax year

but denies any issue with said year.

15.

Respondent admits only the 2026 tax year has been identified as under appeal.

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

2026

$757,820

$378,910

Page 3

3 

 

 

17. 

Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$757,820 

$378,910 

$378,910 

 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$0 

$0 

$0 

 

19. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in Paragraph 19 but 

denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief as Petitioner’s amounts do not reflect an accurate 

valuation of this property as of tax day. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable 

values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted 

by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and 

the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 

20. 

Respondent denies the allegation set forth in Paragraph 20 for the reason that the 

same is untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed 

permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were 

correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values 

and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Southfield, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, 

affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and 

award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.

Page 4

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257)

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

Attorneys for Respondent

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

Dated: October 16, 2026

(248) 731-3089

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent, City of Southfield, asserts the following affirmative defenses:

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

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981).

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See

MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974).

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 Respondent or

its agents.

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject

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

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the

Page 5

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts

to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper.

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen

method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State.

Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by

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

properties in Respondent’s taxing unit.

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.

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 raise additional affirmative defenses as the same

may become known to it during the course of these proceedings.