Respondent's Answers _ Affirmative Defenses 26-000560.pdf
Hartland Towne Square LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Hartland Respondent · 26-000560-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 ______________________ HARTLAND TOWNE SQUARE LLC, Petitioners, v. HARTLAND TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000560 Parcel ID No. 4708-21-400-069 and additional parcels ______________________________________________________________________________ Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 HARTLAND TOWNSHIP’S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Hartland 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. The property that is the subject of this appeal consists of these contiguous real property parcels: Parcel Number Address Classification Use 4708-21-400-069 Highland Road 202 Comm Retail 4708-21-402-001 Hartland Square Dr 202 Comm Retail 4708-21-402-003 Hartland Square Dr 202 Comm Retail 4708-21-402-004 Hartland Square Dr 202 Comm Retail 4708-21-401-008 Highland Road 202 Comm Retail 4708-21-400-076 Hartland Road 202 Comm Retail
Page 2
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition. 2. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s _ March, _ July, _ December Board of Review. N/A. ANSWER: Paragraph 2 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4. The subject property is located in the County of Livingston and school district of Hartland Consolidated Schools. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition. 5. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies whether the Petitioners are a “party-in- interest” as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 6. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 32820 Woodward Ave., Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48073. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 7. This appeal involves issues related to: the subject property’s true cash and taxable values. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 8. The tax year at issue is: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition.
Page 3
9. The subject property is listed on the attachment, including, by parcel number: a. Respondent’s Board of Review established values, b. Petitioner’s value contentions, and c. Values in dispute. ANSWER: See attached. 10. Petitioner relies on the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and is based upon the application of wrong principles; and d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to those reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. ANSWER: The preceding allegation contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies that the Petitioners are 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 and are based upon the correct application of proper principals, and do not discriminate against Petitioners.
Page 4
ATTACHMENT TO ANSWER VALUES Respondent’s Board of Review -and- Petitioner’s Contention Parcel Number Respondent Petitioner TCV SEV TV TCV SEV TV 4708-21-400-069 5,337,800 2,668,900 2,668,900 1,130,000 565,000 565,000 4708-21-402-001 743,000 371,500 371,500 100,000 50,000 50,000 4708-21-402-003 743,000 371,500 371,500 100,000 50,000 50,000 4708-21-402-004 51,400 25,700 25,700 20,000 10,000 10,000 4708-21-401-008 999,600 499,800 499,800 200,000 100,000 100,000 4708-21-400-076 3,791,000 1,895,500 1,895,500 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 Totals 11,665,800 5,832,900 5,832,900 2,550,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 9 regarding the true cash, assessed and taxable values established by Respondent’s board of review. Respondent denies Petitioners’ allegations regarding their contentions of values. VALUES IN DISPUTE Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 4708-21-400-069 4,207,800 2,103,900 2,103,900 4708-21-402-001 643,000 321,500 321,500 4708-21-402-003 643,000 321,500 321,500 4708-21-402-004 31,400 15,700 15,700 4708-21-401-008 799,600 399,800 399,800 4708-21-400-076 2,791,000 1,395,500 1,395,500 Totals 9,115,800 4,557,900 4,557,900 ANSWER: Respondent admits that the values in dispute are correct based upon Petitioners’ contention of values but denies that Petitioners’ contentions of values are correct.
Page 5
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Hartland 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: 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. Petitioners have failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. Petitioners have 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. Petitioners have 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 Petitioners provide no factual basis to support the claim for different values. e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioners may not be the proper parties in interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioners 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. Petitioners may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia,
Page 6
failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioners are precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioners’ 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: July 24, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 18461:00229:202911650-1