26-001454 Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses - Assembly Solar I v Hazelton Twp.pdf
Assembly Solar I LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Hazelton Respondent · 26-001454-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________ ASSEMBLY SOLAR I, LLC, Petitioner, v. HAZELTON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001454 Parcel ID No. 004-59-117-000 ______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan M. Shannon (P74535) DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Attorneys for Petitioner 123 W. Allegan St., Suite 900 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 410-5443 rshannon@dickinson-wright.com Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 tdillon@fosterswift.com ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Hazelton Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. This Petition concerns the 2026 values for the following parcel number (the “Subject Property”): 004-59-117-000 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition. 2. The Subject Property is industrial personal property located in the following Township (the “Respondent”): Hazelton Twp. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition.
Page 2
3. The personal property statement for the Subject Property was filed with the local assessor on or before February 20, 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4. The assessment at issue was protested to the local board of review. The Tribunal has jurisdiction regardless as the property is classified as industrial personal property and a statement of assessable property was filed under section 19 of the general property tax act prior to the commencement of the board of review for the year involved. See MCL 205.735a(4)(b). ANSWER: Paragraph 4 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. The Subject Property is located in the following County: Shiawassee ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition. 6. The parcel or parcels of real property with which the Subject Property is associated is/are: 004-25-300-001-01 (4400 N. Byron Rd., Corunna, MI 48817) ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to the Subject Property. ANSWER: Paragraph 7 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. Petitioner’s principal tax address is 575 Fifth Ave., 24th Floor, New York, NY 10017. ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation of paragraph 8 of the Petition and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. This appeal involves issues relating to the Subject Property’s true cash and taxable values, and the uniformity of the Subject Property’s assessment as established by Respondent’s Board of Review.
Page 3
ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 9 of the Petition and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 10. Respondent’s Board of Review established the following values for Subject Property for the 2026 tax year: a. True Cash Value: $12,371,600 b. Assessed and Taxable Values: $6,185,800 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. Petitioner contends that the 2026 values for the Subject Property should be as follows: a. True Cash Value: $8,200,000 b. State Equalized and Taxable Values: $4,100,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition as being untrue and erroneous. 12. The values in dispute for the 2026 tax year are thus as follows: a. True Cash Value $4,171,600 b. State Equalized and Taxable Values $2,085,800 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner’s calculations of the amounts in dispute are correct but denies that Petitioner’s contended values for the Subject Property are correct. 13. The Subject Property is assessed at more than 50% of its true cash value. Among other things, Respondent has utilized a valuation methodology and depreciation tables that are inconsistent with the actual values and depreciation for the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Hazelton Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses:
Page 4
1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. 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 the Respondent. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. c. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. d. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 7. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4). 8. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 9. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter.
Page 5
WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: October 9, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 36399:00002:203133570-1