COJ - Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses and POS 11.20.25.pdf
Fossores, Petitioner Vs. City Of Jackson, Respondent · 24-004252-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 FOSSORES, | Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 24-004252 -Vs- Parcel No. 2-005700000 CITY OF JACKSON, ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent. | / RYAN L. PHILLIPS JACKSON CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Attorney for Petitioner BY: Matthew M. Hagerty (P66015) | 180 W. Michigan Avenue, Suite 603 Mark M. Porterfield (P57917) | Jackson, MI 49201 Attorneys for Respondent (517) 796-3907 161 W. Michigan Avenue (517) 788-4050 mhagerty@cityofjackson.org | mporterfield@cityofjackson.org Jackson, MI 49201 RESPONDENT CITY OF JACKSON’S ANSWER NOW COMES Respondent, City of Jackson, by and through its attorneys, the City Attorney’s Office, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Petition, states as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 1 of Petitioner’s Petition. 2. Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 2 of Petitioner’s Petition. 3. Petitioner did not answer Paragraph 3; therefore, Respondent cannot respond. 4. Petitioner did not answer Paragraph 4; therefore, Respondent cannot respond. 5. Petitioner did not answer Paragraph 5; therefore, Respondent cannot respond. 6. Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 6 of Petitioner’s Petition. 1
Page 2
7. Petitioner did not answer Paragraph 7; therefore, Respondent cannot respond. 8. Respondent admits that the petition was submitted pursuant to order of the Tribunal dated October 13, 2025, assigned MTT docket no. 24-004252. 9. Respondent admits that the petition was submitted pursuant to order of the Tribunal dated October 13, 2025, assigned MTT docket no. 24-004252. 10. Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 10 of Petitioner’s Petition. 11. Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 11 of Petitioner’s Petition. 12. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in Paragraph 12 of Petitioner’s Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Respondent admits that the issue on appeal involves a claimed exemption from ad valorem taxation and further answers that such claimed exemption was denied by this Tribunal on October 15, 2025 as set forth in this Tribunal’s Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609. 14. Respondent admits the allegation contained in Paragraph 14 of Petitioner’s Petition. 15. Respondent admits that the petition was submitted pursuant to order of the Tribunal dated October 13, 2025, assigned MTT docket no. 24-004252. 16. Petitioner did not answer Paragraph 16; therefore, Respondent cannot respond. 17. Petitioner denies the allegations of paragraph 17 as untrue and further states that the subject property was determined to not be entitled to a tax exemption as set forth in this Tribunal’s Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609. 18. In response to paragraph 18, Respondent denies that the taxable value of the property is $0.00 and further states that the property is fully taxable as set forth in this Tribunal’s
Page 3
Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609. 19. Respondent denies there is an incorrect assessment of the subject property; denies that the subject property is entitled to a tax exemption; and further states that the subject property is taxable as set forth in this Tribunal’s Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609. 20.(a-k, inclusive) ~~ Respondent states that the accompanying “addendum” in support of Petitioner’s Petition, paragraphs a-k inclusive, merely represent the conclusions of the pleader; Respondent denies the allegations as untrue; and further states that the requested exemption is moot under the doctrine of res judicata as it was previously litigated and fully adjudicated in this Tribunal’s Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests this Honorable Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s Petition in its entirety based upon this Tribunal’s Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609; that it assess actual costs and attorney fees against Petitioner for costs incurred in responding to the Petition; and further requests all other relief the Tribunal deems to be just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, DATED: November 20, 2025 BY: :
Page 4
MATTHEW M. HAGERTY (P66015) MARK M. PORTERFIELD (P57917) Office of the City Attorney City of Jackson, Michigan 161 W. Michigan Ave. Jackson, MI 49201 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES Respondent, City of Jackson, by and through its attorneys, the City Attorney’s Office, and states the following Affirmative Defenses alternatively and consecutively: 1. The subject property’s assessed, true cash, and taxable values are levied in accordance with the Michigan General Property Tax Act and Michigan Constitution. 2. The subject property is assessed in accordance with generally accepted assessing standards. 3. The subject property is assessed at no more than 50% of its true cash value. 4. The subject property does not meet the legal exemption requirements under MCL 211.7s or any other exemption provision of the General Property Tax Act. 5. Petitioner has failed to present any genuine issue of material fact; Respondent is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law; and Petitioner’s claims are further barred by the doctrine of res judicata based upon this Tribunal’s Final Opinion and Judgment granting Respondent’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in MTT Docket No. 23-000609. Respectfully submitted, DATED: November 20, 2025 BY:
Page 5
MATTHEW M. HAGERTY (P66015) MARK M. PORTERFIELD (P57917) Office of the City Attorney City of Jackson, Michigan 161 W. Michigan Ave. Jackson, MI 49201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE STATE OF MICHIGAN ) )ss COUNTY OF JACKSON ) The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury that on November 20, 2025 she served copies of Respondent City of Jackson’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses upon the Petitioner by first class mail with postage fully prepaid to the following address: LAW OFFICES OF RYAN L. PHILLIPS Attn: Ryan L. Phillips 180 W. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 603 Jackson, MI 49201 DATED: November 20, 2025 Rtbtstmtfodtel ROBERTA HUBBELL