25-002406.pdf
Lowes Home Centers Inc, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Delta, Respondent · 25-002406-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
RECEIVED AUG 0 8 2025 STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-002406 v Parcel No. 23-040-016-100-280-00 Delta Township, Respondent. / MICHAEL B. SHAPIRO (P20282) LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) SETH A. O'LOUGHLIN (P80257) HONIGMAN LLP KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorney for Petitioner HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Attorneys for Respondent Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 (313) 465-7622 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 ANSWER TO SEVERED PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, Delta Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Severed Petition as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 as to the parcel number and parcel address but lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder of the allegations set forth and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
4. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 as to the property’s « classification. Respondent lacks the ability to respond to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 as retail purposes are not defined. 5. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 6. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute relative to the value of a loss but denies that such a loss has occurred. 7. Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 7 for the reason that no assertion was made. In further answer, Petitioner only sets forth a hypothetical condition (i.e., “if P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest . . .) but then fails to state whether or not a protest was made. 8. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, including all subparagraphs, 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 of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 9. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Severed Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs.
Page 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: August 1, 2025 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Delta Township, asserts the following affirmative defenses: i. 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. Alki 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
Page 4
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. 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)
Page 5
PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Severed Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Michael Shapiro, Esq. mshapiro@honigman.com Daniel L. Stanley, Esq. dstanley@honigman.com 1 declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher Dated: August 1, 2025 Kelsea M. Melcher
Page 6
HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 Michigan Tax Tribunal - P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, M1 48909 BO2B1125 p—— US POS FIR 06350F