Answer-Affirmative Defenses and POS_D&M Specialists, Inc.pdf

D & M Plumbing Specialists Inc, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Waterford, Respondent · 25-002183-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

D & M Plumbing Specialists. Inc. 

Petitioner 

vs. 

Docket No: 

__25-002183 

Parcels: W-13-20-126-002 

Township of Waterford 

Respondent 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

Now comes the Township of Waterford, a Michigan Municipal 

Corporation, through its’ Assessor, Paula Moore, and answers the Petition heretofore 

filed in this cause. 

1) 

Answering paragraph one of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations therein contained. 

2) 

Answering paragraph two of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations therein contained. 

3) N/A. 

4) N/A. 

5) N/A. 

6) 

Answering paragraph six of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations therein contained. 

7) N/A. 

8) N/A. 

9) N/A. 

10) Answering paragraph ten of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

address correlates to the parcel listed in the petition.

11) Answering paragraph eleven of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

Township correlates to the parcel listed in the petition. 

12) N/A. 

13) Answering paragraph thirteen of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations therein contained. 

14) Answering paragraph fourteen of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

year correlates to the information in the petition. 

15) N/A. 

16) Answering paragraph sixteen of the Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations therein contained. 

17) Answering paragraph seventeen of the Petition, Respondent denies the 

allegations therein contained. 

18) Answering paragraph eighteen of the Petition, Respondent denies the 

allegations therein contained. 

19) Answering paragraph nineteen of the Petition, Respondent denies the 

allegations therein contained. 

20) Answering paragraph twenty of the Petition, Respondent denies the 

allegations therein contained. 

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that the Petitioners’ claim be 

denied and that the Tribunal sustains the assessed value of $587,950 and the taxable 

value of $509,130 for Parcel W-13-20-126-002, as confirmed by the local Board of 

Dated: 

7 

OF WATERFORD 

20 eg 

Paila di 

Assessor

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, 

Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 

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. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, 

discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property failed 

to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the 

Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 

4. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, 

assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

5. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that the 

assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also fails to allege 

specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable value is 

improper. 

6. 

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was applied 

to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive at the 

respective equalized assessments. 

7. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal preference 

by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of 

other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit.

8. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalizations as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

9. 

If Petitioner appeared at the Board of Review, Petitioner failed in its appearance 

before the Board of Review to specifically allege: 

A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash 

value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and 

constitutional limitations. 

The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment 

is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all 

other property within the Township of Waterford, excepting this property 

which is also under appeal. 

C. 

The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the 

application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive 

fraud upon the taxpayer. 

D. 

Sufficient evidence to enable the Board of Review to make a decision. 

The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent’s Board of Review, if 

a Board of Review 

appearance was required, constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided 

for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in 

the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to 

Respondent’s Board of Review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

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 may not be a party in interest to this matter.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Charter Township of Waterford, demands that Petitioner 

respond to these Affirmative Defenses and denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks 

and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject 

property be affirmed or increased and that the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice 

and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD 

DY, 

| 

ZV] pL 

Dated: September 

/ 

2025 

"PAULA MOORE; Chief Assessor 

5200 Civic Center Drive 

Waterford, MI 48329 

(248) 674-6204

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

D & M Plumbing Specialists, Inc. 

Petitioner 

vs. 

Docket No: 

__25-002183 

Parcel:_W-13-20-126-002 

TOWNSHIP OF WATERFORD, 

Respondent 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Joyce C. Lyman, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 11 day of September, 

2025, she served a true copy of Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses by 

placing the copy in an envelope correctly and plainly addressed to: 

Jay A. Schwartz 

Property Tax Reduction Services, LLC 

37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite B 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

and depositing same in the United States Mail with postage thereon fully prepaid; and by e-filing 

a copy to: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P. O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Ube Oe 

gyye LYMAN / 

Sworn to and subscribed before me the 

/ 7 

day of September, 2025. 

Altiadecy 

KATHLEEN M. LINDSEY 

Notary Public, Oakland County, MI 

My Commission Expires December 31, 2026 

Acting in the County of Oakland

← View full record