Answer_TF Capital_FINAL.pdf
Tf Capital, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak Respondent · 26-000432-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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TF CAPITAL, LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF ROYAL OAK, Respondent. Docket No. 26-000432 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JOSEPH M. ROGOWSKI (P51316) FRIEDLAENDER NYKANAN ROGOWSKI PLC Attorneys for Petitioner 1700 W. Big Beaver, Suite 220 (248) 629-0880 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 Royal Oak, 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. Upon information and belief, Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 5. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required.
Page 2
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 2 of 6 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 10. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10 in regard to parcel no. 25-16- 183-018. 11. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as the issues relevant to this appeal but denies said issues have merit. Moreover, Respondent denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 14. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2026 tax year but denies any issue with the identified tax year. 15. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the 2026 tax year are: Parcel No. True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 72-25-16-183-018 $365,580 $182,790 $181,950 72-25-16-183-019 $303,460 $151,730 $143,500 72-25-16-183-020 $348,320 $174,160 $153,160 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above for the 2026 tax year are: Parcel No. True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 72-25-16-183-018 $365,580 $182,790 $181,950 72-25-16-183-019 $303,460 $151,730 $143,500 72-25-16-183-020 $348,320 $174,160 $153,160
Page 3
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 3 of 6 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above for the 2026 tax year are: Parcel No. True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 72-25-16-183-018 $0 $0 $0 72-25-16-183-019 $0 $0 $0 72-25-16-183-020 $0 $0 $0 19. Respondent acknowledges the relief sought by Petitioner via Paragraph 19 but denies Petitioner is entitled to such relief. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principals, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 20. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 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 for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principals, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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. 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 24, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 4
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 4 of 6 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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 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 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. 6. 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 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.
Page 5
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 5 of 6 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 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: June 24, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 6
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 6 of 6 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: Joseph M. Rogowski Friedlaender Nykanen Rogowski PLC jrogowski@fnrplc.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher________________ Dated: June 24, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher