2025-07-21 Appearance & Answer.pdf
Commerce Investment Company LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Commerce, Respondent · 25-002468-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 TAX TRIBUNAL COMMERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-002468 Parcel Nos. 17-08-301-141 v. 17-08-301-142 17-08-301-143 17-08-301-146 17-08-301-147 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE, Respondent. LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (248) 731-3089 Lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967) ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC Attorneys for Respondent 39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 (248) 540-7400 Jkummer@anafirm.com APPEARANCE TO: CLERK OF THE COURT PLEASE ENTER the appearance of Adkison, Need, Allen, & Rentrop, PLLC for and on behalf of RESPONDENT CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC By: /s/ John W. Kummer John W. Kummer (P79967) Attorney for Respondent 39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Dated: July 21, 2025 (248) 540-7400
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL COMMERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-002468 Parcel Nos. 17-08-301-141 v. 17-08-301-142 17-08-301-143 17-08-301-146 17-08-301-147 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE, Respondent. LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (248) 731-3089 Lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967) ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC Attorneys for Respondent 39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 (248) 540-7400 Jkummer@anafirm.com ANSWER TO PETITION Now comes Respondent, Charter Township of Commerce, which is located in Oakland County, Michigan, by its attorneys, Adkison, Need, Allen, & Rentrop, PLLC, and for its Answer to Petition states as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 4. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 4. 5. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 regarding the assessments established by Respondent. Respondent neither admits nor denies in regard to the
Page 3
Commerce Investment Company, LLC v. Charter Township of Commerce MTT Docket No. 25-002468 Answer to Petition Page 2 remainder of Paragraph 5 due to lack of sufficient information on which to form a belief and Petitioner is left to its proofs. 6. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 for lack of sufficient information on which to form a belief and Petitioner is left to its proofs. 7. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 8. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. The values established by Respondent's Board of Review for the subject property are as follows: Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value E-17-08-301-141 $400,040 $200,020 $195,370 E-17-08-301-142 $400,040 $200,020 $195,370 E-17-08-301-143 $421,145 $210,570 $205,680 E-17-08-301-146 $400,040 $200,020 $195,370 E-17-08-301-147 $378,925 $189,460 $185,060 9. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 for lack of sufficient information on which to form a belief and Petitioner is left to its proofs. 10. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. The values in dispute are as follows: Parcel Number True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value E-17-08-301-141 $295,814 $147,907 $143,257 E-17-08-301-142 $295,814 $147,907 $143,257 E-17-08-301-143 $316,919 $158,457 $153,567 E-17-08-301-146 $295,814 $147,907 $143,257 E-17-08-301-147 $274,699 $137,347 $132,947 11. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 for the reason that said allegations are untrue. 12. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 including subparagraphs (a) through (d), for the reason that the same are untrue. The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash
Page 4
Commerce Investment Company, LLC v. Charter Township of Commerce MTT Docket No. 25-002468 Answer to Petition Page 3 value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correction application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessments of the subject property, or increase same if the proofs submitted at trial warrant such action, and award Respondent its costs and fees incurred in defending this action. Respectfully submitted, ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC By: /s/ John W. Kummer John W. Kummer (P79967) Attorney for Respondent 39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Dated: July 21, 2025 (248) 540-7400 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent asserts the following affirmative defenses in response to Petitioner’s Petition: 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. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi 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.
Page 5
Commerce Investment Company, LLC v. Charter Township of Commerce MTT Docket No. 25-002468 Answer to Petition Page 4 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 Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 6. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property and 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 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 seeks 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. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 11. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. Respectfully submitted, ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC By: /s/ John W. Kummer John W. Kummer (P79967) Attorney for Respondent 39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 Dated: July 21, 2025 (248) 540-7400
Page 6
m:\ctc\tribunal\commerce investment company, llc\25-002468\plead\2025-07-21 appearance & answer.docx STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL COMMERCE INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-002468 Parcel Nos. 17-08-301-141 v. 17-08-301-142 17-08-301-143 17-08-301-146 17-08-301-147 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMMERCE, Respondent. LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (248) 731-3089 Lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com G. HANS RENTROP (P65121) JOHN W. KUMMER (P79967) ADKISON, NEED, ALLEN, & RENTROP, PLLC Attorneys for Respondent 39572 Woodward Avenue, Suite 222 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 (248) 540-7400 Jkummer@anafirm.com PROOF OF SERVICE On the 21st day of July, 2025, I served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance, Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, via electronic mail to Laura Hallahan, Esq. at lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com, and also by first-class mail with postage fully prepaid thereon, depositing said envelope in a United States governmental mailbox in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, addressed to: Laura M. Hallahan, Esq. Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 I declare the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. /s/ Corrie Ragalyi Corrie Ragalyi