Answer to Motion to Amend 2026.pdf
Lowes Home Centers Inc, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Clinton, Respondent · 25-002241-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 LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, INC., Petitioner, v CLINTON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. Docket No. 25-002241 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JACKIE J. COOK (P68781) DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) HONIGMAN LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 2290 First National Bldg. 660 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226-3506 (313) 465-7270 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 _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION TO CONTEST 2026 TAXABLE VALUE ONLY Respondent, Clinton Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Motion to Amend as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 2, including subparagraphs (a)-(d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the taxable value does not exceed permitted amounts by the Michigan Constitution and/or applicable statues, does not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, was correctly determined and is based upon correct
Page 2
2 application of proper principles, and the taxable value and Respondent’s mode of assessment are uniform, non-discriminatory and constitutional. 3. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of the Motion but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the preceding paragraphs and because Petitioner’s Motion fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted insofar as Petitioner has not provided any reasons why it contends the 2026 taxable value of the subject property is incorrect or otherwise fails to comply with MCL 211.27a or other applicable law. The subject property’s 2026 taxable value is equal to or less than 50% of its true cash value and the subject property’s 2026 taxable value does not exceed the applicable inflation rate multiplier.1 4. Respondent incorporates by reference the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to Petition herein. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Clinton Township requests the Tribunal enter an Order: (A) Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and dismissing the appeal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; OR (B) Requiring Petitioner provide the basis for why it contends the subject property’s 2026 taxable value is incorrect or otherwise fails to comply with applicable law when Petitioner has not protested the subject property’s 2026 true cash value. 1 The subject property’s 2025 taxable value was set at $3, 3,757,091.
Page 3
3 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: May 11, 2026 (248) 731-3089 PROOF OF SERVICE On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to: Jackie J. Cook jcook@honigman.com Daniel L. Stanley dstanley@honigman.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Holly McIntyre_____________ Dated: May 11, 2026 Holly McIntyre