Respondent's Answers and Affirmative Defenses - SHT FCD v Cascade Twp 26-002628.pdf

Sht Fcd LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Cascade Respondent · 26-002628-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

SHT FCD LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

v 

 

CASCADE TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-002628 

 

PPN: 41-19-16-126-022 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jon Aylsworth 

PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS 

Representative for Petitioner 

861 Pinecrest Ave. SE 

Grand Rapids, MI 49506 

(269) 366-0300 

jack@skylinepropertytax.com 

 

Laura J. Genovich (P72278) 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

lgenovich@fosterswift.com 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

 

Respondent, Cascade 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. 

 Petitioner is SHT FCD LLC whose principal office or address is 6660 Old 28th St SE, 

Grand Rapids, MI 49546. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1 of the Petition and, therefore, neither 

admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. 

Respondent, Cascade Township, establishes levies and collects the property taxes on 

the subject property. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the 

Petition.

3. 

 The property identification is # 4 1 - 1 9 - 1 6 - 1 2 6 - 0 2 2 , and the subject property 

address is 6660 Old 28th ST SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546. The property is classified 

as commercial, real property. Petitioner's Property is presently used for commercial. 

Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally designed to be used for 

commercial. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations regarding the property’s identification 

number and classification as commercial. Respondent, however, is without sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the remaining allegation and the truth 

of the property’s original design and, therefore, neither admits nor denies that 

allegation, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

4. 

The property is located in Kent County and the school districts of Forest Hills Public 

and the Kent Intermediate School District and Grand Rapids Community College. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the 

Petition. 

 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to the true cash and taxable values for the parcel 

referenced above for the 2026 tax year. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the 

Petition. 

 

6. 

For tax year 2026, Respondent's Board of Review determined an assessed value of 

$768,300 a state equalized value of $768,300 and a taxable value of $768,300. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 

 

7. 

Petitioner appealed at the 2026 March Board of Review and the requested relief was 

denied. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition. 

 

8. 

 The 2026 values set by the respondent are invalid and unlawful as they exceed the 

amount allowed by Michigan law and the Michigan Constitution and do not reflect 

the true cash value of the fee simple interest as of the applicable tax date. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 as untrue. The 

assessed, state equalized and taxable values were correctly determined and are based upon 

the correct application of proper principles. 

 

9. 

 Petitioner contends the true cash value of the subject property is $1,088,600 which 

would yield a state equalized value of $544,300 and the taxable value is $544,300.

The amount in contention is $224,000 for assessed value, state equalize and $224,000 

for taxable value, and the amount in contention is $448,000 for true cash value. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 9 as untrue and erroneous. 

 

10. 

Petitioner requests that the Tribunal reduce the assessed value and the taxable value 

of the subject parcel from $768,300 and $768,300 respectively to $544,300 and order 

a refund with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. 

 

ANSWER: Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested for the reason that Petitioner’s 

contended amounts do not reflect accurate valuations of the Subject Property. The 

assessed, state equalized and taxable values were correctly determined and are based upon 

the correct application of proper principles. 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, Cascade Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & 

Smith, P.C., states as follows for its 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. 

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: September 11, 2026 

 

 

By: 

____________________________________ 

 

 

Laura J. Genovich (P72278) 

 

 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

 

 

1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 

 

 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

 

 

(616) 726-2258 

87192:00045:203051037-1

← View full record