Answer to Petition - Highland Road Development v Hartland Twp.pdf
Highland Road Development LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Hartland Respondent · 26-001102-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 ______________________ HIGHLAND ROAD DEVELOPMENT LLC, Petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF HARTLAND, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001102 Parcel ID No. 4708-28-201-061 ______________________________________________________________________________ Sarah R. Belloli RYAN LLC Petitioner’s Authorized Representative 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 sarah.belloli@ryan.com Michael D. Homier (P60318) 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 mhomier@fosterswift.com tdillon@fosterswift.com ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Township of Hartland, 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. Property Parcel No: 4708-28-201-061 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition. 2. The property identified above is: Real. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? N/A
Page 2
ANSWER: Paragraph 3 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 4 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number? N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 5 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s _ March _ July _ December Board of Review. No protest to the Board of Review was required. ANSWER: Paragraph 7 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue: N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 8 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue. N/A
Page 3
ANSWER: Paragraph 9 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Livingston County. The property’s address is: 10382 Highland Rd, Hartland, MI 48353. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the: Hartland Township. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 4327 DELEMERE COURT, STE 100, ROYAL OAK, MI 48073. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to: the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition. 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years: N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 15 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are:
Page 4
Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $1,547,800 $773,900 $625,665 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $250,000 $125,000 $125,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $1,297,800 $648,900 $500,665 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief: Petitioner respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal enter an order: (a) reducing the 2026 True Cash Value, State Equalized Value, and Taxable Value of the subject property to the values set forth in paragraph 17 above; (b) directing Respondent to refund to Petitioner all taxes paid in excess of those properly owed, plus statutory interest; and (c) granting such other and further relief as is just and equitable. ANSWER: Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested in paragraph 19 as the assessed, state equalized and taxable values are based on the correct application of proper principals. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested: A. The equalized assessment thus imposed on the subject property is more than 50% of its true cash value in violation of the applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The assessment is based on improper or inaccurate valuation methodology, including but not limited to the use of non-representative data, failure to account for relevant property
Page 5
characteristics, and/or application of incorrect assumptions. As a result, the assessment is not uniform with comparable properties and results in an excessive and unlawful tax burden. ANSWER: Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested as the assessed, state equalized and taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined, are based upon the correct application of proper principals and do not discriminate against Petitioner. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Township of Hartland, 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: 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 does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(f). b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief.
Page 6
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) and (8). 8. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 10. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter. 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: August 10, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258