Answer_North Branch Real Estate_FINAL.pdf
North Branch Real Estate Holdings, Petitioner Vs. Township Of North Branch, Respondent · 25-001969-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL NORTH BRANCH REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BRANCH, Respondent. Docket No. 25-001969 Parcel No. 44-016-006-021-01 _____________________________________________________________________________/ TIMOTHY W. DENNEY (P39990) MARK A. LEICHLITER (P72123) RICKARD, DENNEY, LEICHLITER, CHILDERS & BOSCH Attorneys for Petitioner 110 N. Saginaw Street, Suite 1 Lapeer, MI 48846 (810) 664-0750 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, Township of North Branch, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to the parcel identified in Petitioner’s Petition. 4. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to the issues in this case but denies that those issues have merit or that Petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Page 2
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 2 of 5 2 5. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 $1,584,800 $792,400 $714,400 6. Respondent acknowledges the values Petitioner has identified as in dispute but denies any issue with the subject property’s assessment and/or valuation for the 2025 tax year. 7. Respondent admits a protest was made but neither admits nor denies the necessity of such a protest as MCL 205.735a speaks for itself. Respondent denies any implication Petitioner presented the Board of Review with evidence sufficient to warrant an adjustment of the subject property’s assessment or that an adjustment of said assessment is otherwise warranted. 8. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 10. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 as Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 speaks for itself. 11. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 12, including subparagraphs (a)- (b), 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 for 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. 13. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 $1,584,800 $792,400 $714,400 14. Respondent acknowledges the relief sought by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons set forth above.
Page 3
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 3 of 5 3 WHEREFORE, Respondent, Township of North Branch, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. _/s/Laura M. Hallahan________________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P8582) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: July 22, 2025 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Township of North Branch, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 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. 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, as well as all others, to arrive at the 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.
Page 4
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 4 of 5 4 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) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Date: July 22, 2025 (248) 731-3089
Page 5
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 5 of 5 5 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Timothy W. Denney tdenney@twdpclaw.com Mark A. Leichliter mleichliter@twdpclaw.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher_______________ Dated: July 22, 2025 Kelsea M. Melcher