Answer Aff Defs & POS Maple Tree Inv.pdf
Maple Tree Investment LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Shelby Respondent · 26-001522-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
KIRK, HUTH. LANGE &« BADALAMENTI, r.LcC. STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MAPLE TREE INVESTMENT, L.L.C. Petitioner, vs. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001522 Parcel No. 23-07-14-400-042 / JAY A. SCHWARTZ PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION SERVICES, LLC Representative for Petitioner 37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Ste. B Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 672-1922 jschwartz@propertytaxreductionservices.com KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENT]L, PLC ROSEMARY V. DAVIS (P47336) ROBERT S. HUTH, JR. (P42531) Attorneys for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 Clinton Township, MI 48038 (586) 412-4900 rdavis@kirkhuthlaw.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION NOW COMES the Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, by and through its attorneys, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC, and for its Answer to Petition, states as follows: 1. Answering Paragraph 1, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 3. Answering Paragraph 3, Respondent states that the paragraph is not applicable.
Page 2
KIRK. HUTH, LANGE &« BADALAMENTI p.LC. 7. Answering Paragraph 7, Respondent states that the paragraph is not applicable. 8. Answering Paragraph 8, Respondent states that the paragraph is not applicable. 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Respondent states that the paragraph is not applicable. 10. Answering Paragraph 10, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 11. Answering Paragraph 11, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 12. Answering Paragraph 12, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 13. Answering Paragraph 13, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 14. Answering Paragraph 14, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 15. Answering Paragraph 15, Respondent states that the paragraph is not applicable. 16. Answering Paragraph 16, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 17. Answering Paragraph 17, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason that they are untrue. 18. Answering Paragraph 18, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 19. Answering Paragraph 19, Respondent requests that the Tribunal deny the relief
Page 3
KIRK. HUTH, LANGE &« BADALAMENTI. p.L.C. 20. Answering Paragraph 20, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason that they are untrue. Respondent reserves the right to amend this Answer to include any additional defenses or information that may become known to Respondent during the course of this proceeding. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s Petition and grant any further relief that this Tribunal deems appropriate and just. Respectfully Submitted, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC [s/Rosemary V. Davis ROSEMARY V. DAVIS (P47336) Attorneys for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Ste. 100 Clinton Township, MI 48038 (586) 412-4900 Dated: September 25, 2026
Page 4
KIRK, HUTH. LANGE ¢ BADALAMENTI. r.L.C. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, through its attorneys, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC, files the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts upon which the mode and method of appraising property fail to conform with mode and method applied to all other properties in the community. 2. Petitioner has failed to show that any fact other than 50 percent was applied to the true cash value of the property. 3. Petitioner is asking this Honorable Tribunal to make an underassessment based upon an arbitrary basis. 4. A levy of all taxes are required to be made based upon the assessment of 50 percent of true cash value as ultimately determined by the process of county and state equalization. 5. Respondent reserves the right to file additional affirmative defenses as may become apparent in this case. Respectfully Submitted, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC [s/Rosemary V. Davis ROSEMARY V. DAVIS (P47336) Attorneys for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Ste. 100 Clinton Township, MI 48038 (586) 412-4900
Page 5
KIRK. HUTH. LANGE &« BADALAMENTI »r.L.C. STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MAPLE TREE INVESTMENT, L.L.C. Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001522 Vs. Parcel No. 23-07-14-400-042 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, Respondent. / PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on September 25, 2026, she served a copy of: Respondent’s Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses and Proof of Service upon: Jay A. Schwartz Property Tax Reduction Services, LLC 37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Ste. B Farmington Hills, MI 48331 via First Class Mail, with postage prepaid thereon, I declare that the above information is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. [s/Carol Wilson Carol Wilson