26-001407.pdf
Ten Mile & Orchard Lake Prop LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Farmington Hills Respondent · 26-001407-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
RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2026 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MiCHiGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TEN MILE & ORCHARD LAKE PROP LLC Petitioner v MOAHR Docket 26-001407 Parcel No, 22-23-22-476-057 CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS, Respondent Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Farmington Hills, MI 48336 (248) 871-2479 jezeiszperger@fhgov.com / RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RESPONDENT, the City of Farmington Hills, through its Assessor, Jennifer Hendrix, hereby responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Asto Paragraph 1, Respondent admits the allegations. 2. As to Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations. 3. Asto Paragraph 3, Respondent admits the allegations. 4. As to Paragraph 4, Respondent admits the allegations. 5. As to Paragraph 5, no response is required as no allegations have been made. No March
Page 2
MTT Docket # 26-001407 8. As to Paragraph 8, Respondent admits the allegations. 9. The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value Taxable Value 22-23-22-476-057 $1,396,920 $698,460 $668,920 10. As to Paragraph 10, and including subparagraphs (a) through (d), Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations for the reason that they ate 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 constitutional. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax year, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 11. As to paragraph 11, Respondent denies that Petitioner’s values for the subject property are accurate or true. 12. As to Paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 for the reason that it 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 constitutional. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax year and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Farmington Hills respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition; affirm Respondent's assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization., and award Respondent its cost and attorney fees.
Page 3
MTT Docket # 26-001407 Dated: 9 | Yd OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS By: A 3 LAL lg A \oudg ely Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor, Farmington Hills 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Farmington Hills, MI 48336 (248) 871-2479 jezeiszperger@fhgov.com
Page 4
MTT Docket # 26-001407 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS will rely on the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against the Respondent and to support Petitioner's claim for relief. 2. 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). 3. 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). 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent ‘or its agents. 5. Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. 6. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. 7. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s
Page 5
MTT Docket # 26-001407 9. Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its Ny —-—— in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. 14. Respondent objects to the extent Petitioner lacks standing to bring this Petition. WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS By: 3 bu 1d Hou (ELS Jenhifer Hendtix, MMAO City Assessor, Farmington Hills 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Dated: Z5|é
Page 6
. STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR TEN MILE & ORCHARD LAKE PROP LLC , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) \ MTT Docket No. 26001407 CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS , Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE JENNIFER HENDRIX states that on 9)z= lz C he/she [Name of person serving/mailing petition] [dafe of sefvice] served a copy of the ANSWER relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] MTT P.O. BOX 3023: 2, LANSING MI 48309 ~~ AND JOSHUA T SHILLAIR, COLLIERS INERNATIONAL 400 W 4TH STREET, SUTE 350 ROYAL OAK, MI 48067 J) me loud ny, [Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] JENNIFER HENDRIX, MMAO [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]
Page 7
fe @
|
p=
®
in
LASS
EARMINGTOIN
City of Farmington Hills
METROPLEX
Finance Department
HILLS
Assessing Division
24 SEP 2026 Al
hichigon,
31555 West Eleven Mile Road
:
Farmington Hills, MI 48336
‘
26-001407]
{ £1255 $
ATE 0008042865
FIRSTS
i
pres
pt
dv
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
9207
87 d4S
P.O. BOX 30232
LANSING, MI 48909
panieoay