CVS - Answer to Petition w affirmative defenses.pdf
Cvs Lake Norwood Inc, Petitioner Vs. City Of Grand Rapids, Respondent · 25-002170-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 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CVS LAKE NORWOOD, INC. Petitioner, Docket No. 25-002170 v. Parcel No. 41-14-32-229-014 CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________________ Paul M. Jones, Jr. Jones Pyatt Law, LLC Attorney for Petitioner 435 E Main St, Ste. 220 Greenwood, IN 46143 paul@jonespyattlaw.com Elizabeth J. Fossel (P41430) Kendall R. O’Connor (P84036) Grand Rapids Department of Law Attorneys for Respondent 300 Monroe Ave NW, Suite 620 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 456-4029 efossel@grand-rapids.mi.us koconnor@grand-rapids.mi.us ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S APPEARANCE AND ANSWER TO PETITION WITH PROOF OF SERVICE NOW COMES Elizabeth J. Fossel and Kendall R. O’Connor for the City of Grand Rapids, who hereby enters their Appearance of Counsel on behalf of Respondent City of Grand Rapids, and answers Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Property Parcel No: 41-14-32-229-014 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) ANSWER: Admitted. 2. The property identified above is x real personal. ANSWER: Admitted. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous?
Page 2
__ Yes __ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-contiguous parcel.) ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 3 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? Yes __ No . (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 4 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 5 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial- Improved. ANSWER: Respondent admits the property is classified as Commercial. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s March ____ July ___ December Board of Review. ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 7 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 8 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke
Page 3
the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 9 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Kent County. The property or properties’ address is: 1528 SE Lake Dr, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 ANSWER: Admitted. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local government unit): City of Grand Rapids ANSWER: Respondent admits the assessment at issue was established by the City of Grand Rapids. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 200 Highland Corp Dr MC 2315 Cumberland, RI 02864 ANSWER: Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allegation, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involved issues relating to the (check all that are applicable); x the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? Yes No uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 13 of Petitioner’s Petition for the reason that Respondent lacks knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025 ANSWER: Admitted.
Page 4
15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: There are no allegations in paragraph 15 of Petitioner’s Petition, and therefore no response is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 3,531,200 1,756,600 1,369,097 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations and corresponding values as set forth in paragraph 16 of Petitioner’s Petition with respect to State Equalized Value and Taxable Value. Respondent denies the allegation and corresponding value as set forth with respect to True Cash Value, which correctly equates to $3,513,200. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue the allegations and corresponding values as set forth in paragraph 17 of Petitioner’s Petition. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 1,531,200 756,600 369,097 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations and corresponding values in disputes as alleged in paragraph 18 of Petitioner’s Petition with respect to State Equalized Value and
Page 5
Taxable Value. Respondent denies the allegation and corresponding value in dispute as set forth with respect to True Cash Value, which correctly equates to $1,513,200. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Reduction of TCV, SEV and AV as indicated in paragraph 17. ANSWER: Paragraph 19 merely states Petitioner’s request for relief to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief sought or any remedy with regards to this Petition. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary) Petitioner is a party-in-interest, ie., Petitioner holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the subject of this appeal. Comparable sales and/or income capitalization analysis. Petitioner may obtain an appraisal for the purpose of this appeal. Valuation evidence will be provided in accordance with the Tribunal’s disclosure schedule. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 20 of Petitioner’s Petition for the reason that Respondent lacks knowledge or sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 6
RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Petitioner lacks standing under MCL 205.735a as a party in interest because Petitioner did not possess a property interest in the subject property as of the relevant tax day. 2. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a because the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not invoked by a party in interest filing a timely written petition. 3. The City of Grand Rapids, is entitled to any and all privileges and immunities provided by law. 4. The City reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its Affirmative Defenses if additional defenses are revealed during the course of discovery. WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Grand Rapids prays that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, a Michigan municipal corporation Dated: September 22, 2025 By: /s/ Kendall R. O’Connor Kendall R. O’Connor (P84036) Assistant City Attorney Attorney for Respondent
Page 7
PROOF OF SERVICE Alma Echeverria, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Legal Secretary in the Office of the City Attorney, attorneys for Respondent herein, and that on September 22, 2025, she served true and complete copies of Respondent’s Appearance and Answer to Petition via first class mail and email, upon: Paul M. Jones Jr. Jones Pyatt Law, LLC 435 E Main St, Ste 200 Greenwood, IN 46143 paul@jonespyattlaw.com /s/ Alma Echeverria Alma Echeverria