25-002265.pdf

Hd Development Of Maryland Inc, Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield, Respondent · 25-002265-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

RECEIVED 

JUL.01 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

NAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBU 

HD DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND, INC., 

Petitioner, 

Docket No. 25-002265 

v 

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, 

Respondent. 

/ 

MICHAEL B. SHAPIRO (P20282) 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

(313) 465-7622 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

ANSWER TO SEVERED 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 as to parcel number and address. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder of the 

allegations set forth in Paragraph | and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

4. 

Respondent admits that subject property is classified as commercial real. With 

respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner 

to its proofs. 

S. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies 

that Petitioner’s claims have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

6. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 7 for the reason 

that no assertion was made. In further answer, Petitioner only sets forth a hypothetical condition 

(i.e., “if P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest 

. 

. .) but then fails to state whether or 

not a protest was made. 

8. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a)-(d), 

for the reason that the same are 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. 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in 

the above Paragraphs. 

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

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

/s/Laura M. Hallahan 

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: June 27, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

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

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. 

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

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Cov 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 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. 

5. 

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.

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. 

7. 

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. 

8. 

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. 

9. 

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. 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

/s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O'LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Respondent

PROOF OF MAILING 

On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition 

and Affirmative Defenses to: 

Michael B. Shapiro, Esq. 

Honigman LLP 

mshapiro@honigman.com 

Daniel L. Stanley 

Honigman LLP 

dstanley@honigman.com 

I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

/s/Kelsea M. Melcher 

Dated: June 27, 2025 

Kelsea M. Melcher

ENN 

LA NNR LL FNNS Cn 25 + Ben Ne mn 

— 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

METROPLEX MI480 

28 JUN 2025 PM 17 LL 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

po0

sue

B96946.13

← View full record