MT - Answer Aff Defs & POS - 1048.pdf

Agree Limited Partnership Petitioner Vs. Township Of Macomb Respondent · 26-001048-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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

’ 

AGREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

— 

Petitioner, 

VS. 

MTT Docket No. 26-001048 

MACOMB TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

ALEX MORSE 

TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC 

DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Representatives for Petitioner 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 102 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(586) 263-5050 

(317) 689-6467 — ofc 

ttomlinson@ttimlaw.com 

(917) 488-7825 — mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmaine.com 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION 

NOW COMES the Respondent, Macomb Township, by and through its attorneys, York, 

Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and in answer to Petitioner's Petition, states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits paragraph 3. 

4. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient 

information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 

5. 

Respondent admits paragraph S.

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Respondent admits paragraph 6. 

Respondent admits paragraph 7. 

Respondent admits paragraph 8. 

Respondent admits paragraph 9. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 10 being without sufficient 

information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 

Respondent denies paragraph 11 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

Respondent admits paragraph 12. 

Respondent admits paragraph 13. 

Defendant denies paragraph 14 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

Defendant denies paragraph 15 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

Defendant denies paragraph 16, including (a) thru (d), because it is untrue, 

| 

leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss 

the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees 

wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter.

Respectfully submitted, 

TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC 

— 

= 

re 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Road, Ste. 102 

Clinton Twp., MI 48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@ttimlaw.com 

Dated: August 3, 2026 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Tho undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was 

served upon ell parties to 

the above cause to each of tho zttemeys 

of record herein at th 

resses disclosed cnjns 

4 

pleadings on 

“2 

By: [] Overnight 

Coury 

mT 

RE 

malo 

(J Hand Delivered 

{] 

[7] Certified Maj 

Signaiure

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

AGREE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

MTT Docket No. 26-001048 

MACOMB TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

ALEX MORSE 

TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC 

DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Representatives for Petitioner 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 102 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(586) 263-5050 

(317) 689-6467 — ofc 

ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

NOW COMES the Respondent, Macomb Township, by and through its attorneys, 

Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC, and for its Affirmative Defenses, states as follows: 

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. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of 

law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of 

the Respondent. 

3. 

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property 

failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all of the 

properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.

10. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash 

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that 

the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and 

also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support is allegations that that 

the property’s taxable value is improper. 

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was 

applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all 

others to arrive at the respective equalized assessments. 

Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal 

preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed 

in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and 

state equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a 

cause of action. 

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. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional 

requirements.

11. 

Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new 

Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. 

‘WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss 

the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees 

wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TOMLINSO 

IL, PLLC 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 102 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@ttlmaw.com 

Dated: August 3, 2026 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

gned certifies that the foregoing ing 

1) parties to the above cause to each of 

in at 

pz AL 

— 

disc! 

Signaiure 

7 

- 

—e

← View full record