Answer to Petition.pdf
1405 Columbia LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek Respondent · 26-000861-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 TAX TRIBUNAL 1405 Columbia LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-000861 v. Parcel No. 0065-00-830-0 City of Battle Creek, Respondent. COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Joshua T. Shillair, Esq. (P72674) Vice President | Tax Appeal Representative for Petitioner 400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 O: (248) 226-1632 F: (248) 226-1633 joshua.shillair@colliers.com karen.cameron@colliers.com CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) Attorney for Respondent 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014 (269) 966-3385 cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov ANSWER TO PETITION and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER NOW COMES RESPONDENT, City of Battle Creek, by and through its attorneys, and in answer to Petitioners’ Petition responds as follows: 1. The Petitioner in this matter, 1405 Columbia LLC, has the legal residence or principal office address of 32300 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 210, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on property parcel no(s). (hereinafter referenced as the Subject Property) 0065-00-830-0. If the Subject Property in this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the Subject Property’s tax parcels are contiguous. ANSWER: Respondent is unaware as to Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address and neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 1 of its Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies the allegation in Paragraph 1 that Petitioner, 1405 Columbia LLC, is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on property parcel no. 0065-00-830-0. Respondent states further that Respondent’s records provide that the Subject Property owner is 1405 Columbia Ave LLC.
Page 2
2 2. The Subject Property is located in Calhoun County. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 2 of its Petition. 3. Respondent, City of Battle Creek of Calhoun County, assesses and collects property taxes on the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 3 of its Petition. 4. The Subject Property is real property and is classified as Commercial. The Subject Property is presently used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that the Subject Property was originally designed to be used for Commercial purposes. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations that the property is classified as Commercial and is used or available for Commercial purposes. Respondent lacks information as to what Petitioner believes concerning the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 and neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s remaining allegations and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Protest to the 2026 Board of Review was not made and is not required by law for the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 5 of its Petition. 6. The Subject Property’s address is: 1405 W Columbia Ave, Battle Creek, MI 49015. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 6 of its Petition. 7. This appeal involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) uniformity. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 7 of its Petition. 8. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026 ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 8 of its Petition. 9. The values for the Subject Property as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 0065-00-830-0 $951,600.00 $475,800.00 $475,800.00 ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 9 of its
Page 3
3 Petition. 10. The 2026 assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value imposed upon all parcels of the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value exceeds the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 10(a) of its Petition b. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 10(b) of its Petition c. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of the Subject Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 10(c) of its Petition d. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and denies Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and dues process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 10(d) of its Petition 11. Petitioner contends that the actual values for the Subject Property are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 0065-00-830-0 $265,000.00 $132,500.00 $132,500.00 ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue the allegation in Paragraph 11.
Page 4
4 12. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year Parcel Number Assessed Value in Contention 2026 0065-00-830-0 $343,300.00 ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 12 of its Petition. 13. Petitioner relies on the following specific facts to support the relief requested: Market sales and income data indicates that the subject property’s assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value exceed 50% of its actual market value. In addition, the cost less depreciation method Respondent utilizes to establish the Subject Property’s assessment at issue is not related to the Subject Property’s actual market value. ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue the allegation in Paragraph 13. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: (a) Deny Petitioner’s requests; (b) Uphold or increase the values assessed by Respondent; and (c) Order such other and further relief as this Honorable Tribunal deems just and/or equitable. Dated: August 11, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III C. Marcel Stoetzel, III Deputy City Attorney City of Battle Creek 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014
Page 5
5 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent City of Battle Creek asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 2. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3. Petitioner lacks standing. 4. There are no genuine issues of material fact and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 5. Petitioner’s claims must fail due to the fact that they are devoid of arguable legal merit. 6. Petitioner’s claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitation. 7. Respondent reserves the right to amend or supplement these Affirmative Defenses as facts are learned through the discovery process or otherwise. Dated: August 11, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III C. Marcel Stoetzel, III Deputy City Attorney City of Battle Creek 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014