Appearance Answer and Proof of Service.pdf

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Marquette Respondent · 26-001492-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 HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001492 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0513493 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Sarah R. Belloli 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Larsen (P57017) 

Ryan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Marquette 

101 W. Big Beaver, Suite 945 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

Troy, MI 48084 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

(313) 230-01014 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(906) 225-8563 

Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com 

 

 

 

 

 

slarsen@marquettemi.gov 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

 

NOW COMES Suzanne C. Larsen, City Attorney, and hereby enters her Appearance on 

behalf of the Respondent, City of Marquette, in the above cause. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

Dated: 

September 14, 2026 

 

By: Suzanne C. Larsen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen (P57017) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Attorney – City of Marquette 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001492 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0513493 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Sarah R. Belloli 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Larsen (P57017) 

Ryan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Marquette 

101 W. Big Beaver, Suite 945 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

Troy, MI 48084 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

(313) 230-01014 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(906) 225-8563 

Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com 

 

 

 

 

 

slarsen@marquettemi.gov 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent City of Marquette, by and through its attorney, Suzanne C. 

Larsen, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Petition states as follows: 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: 0513493. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the 

corresponding paragraph of the Petition, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

2. 

The property identified above is real. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? 

 

ANSWER: The allegation in the corresponding paragraph of the Petition does not 

require a response because only one parcel of real property is being appealed. 

 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? 

 

ANSWER: The allegation in the corresponding paragraph of the Petition does not 

require a response because it does not appear that parcels of personal property are 

intended to be appealed.

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property 

statements filed by parcel number? 

 

ANSWER: The allegation in the corresponding paragraph of the Petition does not 

require a response because it does not appear that parcels of personal property are 

intended to be appealed. 

 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as 201 commercial improved. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to 

Respondent’s 

 March 

 July 

 December Board of Review. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner made no protest to the Board of 

Review. 

 

8. 

If protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon 

which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or 

assessments at issue. 

 

ANSWER: The allegation in the corresponding paragraph of the Petition does not 

require a response because it is not applicable. 

 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax 

year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke 

the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue. N/A. 

 

ANSWER: The allegation in the corresponding paragraph of the Petition does not 

require a response because it is not applicable. 

 

10. 

The property or properties at issue are located in Marquette County. The property or 

properties’ address is 2045 W. US Hwy 41, City of Marquette, MI. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

11. 

The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the City of Marquette. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

12. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is 233 South Patterson Avenue, 

Springfield, MO 65802.

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the 

corresponding paragraph of the Petition, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

13. 

This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable 

values. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the 

corresponding paragraph of the Petition, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

14. 

The tax year(s) at issue are 2026. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

15. 

If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon 

which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years. 

 

ANSWER: The allegation in the corresponding paragraph of the Petition does not 

require a response because it is not applicable. 

 

16. 

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 

2026 

$2,851,200 

$1,425,600 

$1,392,582 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition. 

 

17. 

Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$1,734,000 

$867,000 

$867,000 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition and further states that the current True Cash, Assessed and 

Taxable Values are correctly assessed. 

 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2026 

$1,117,200 

$558,600 

$525,582 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition and further states that the current True Cash, Assessed and 

Taxable Values are correctly assessed. 

 

19. 

Petitioner requests the following relief: Petitioner respectfully requests that the Michigan 

Tax Tribunal enter an order: (a) reducing the 2026 True Cash Value, State Equalized Value,

and Taxable Value of the subject property to the values set forth in paragraph 17 above; 

(b) direction Respondent to refund to Petitioner all taxes paid in excess of those properly 

owed, plus statutory interest; and (c) granting such other and further relief as is just and 

equitable. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition and further states that the current True Cash, Assessed and 

Taxable Values are correctly assessed. 

 

20. 

List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief 

requested: 

 

A. The equalized assessment thus imposed on the subject property is more than 50% of its 

true cash value in violation of the applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. 

 

B. The assessment is based on improper or inaccurate valuation methodology, including 

but not limited to the use of non-representative data, failure to account for relevant 

property characteristics, and/or application of incorrect assumptions. As a result, the 

assessment is not uniform with comparable properties and results in an excessive and 

unlawful tax burden. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the corresponding 

paragraph of the Petition and further states that the current True Cash, Assessed and 

Taxable Values are correctly assessed. 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

NOW COMES Respondent City of Marquette, by and through its attorney, Suzanne C. 

Larsen, and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 

 

1. The appeal is barred for untimeliness. 

 

2. 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. 

 

3. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) and (8), including, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: 

 

a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (3)(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.

4. Petitioner is not a proper party-in-interest pursuant to MCR 2.116(c)(4), (5), and (8). 

 

5. Petitioner does not have standing to appeal pursuant to MCR 2.116(c)(4), (5), and (8). 

 

6. The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to MCR 2.116 

(c)(4) and (8). 

 

7. Petitioner has 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. 

 

8. 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, 

 

 

Date: 

September 14, 2026 

 

By: Suzanne C. Larsen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen (P57017) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Attorney – City of Marquette 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001492 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 0513493 

CITY OF MARQUETTE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Sarah R. Belloli 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne Larsen (P57017) 

Ryan 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Marquette 

101 W. Big Beaver, Suite 945 

 

 

 

 

300 W. Baraga Avenue 

Troy, MI 48084 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marquette, Michigan 49855 

(313) 230-01014 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(906) 225-8563 

Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com 

 

 

 

 

 

slarsen@marquettemi.gov 

Attorney for Petitioner 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 14, 2026 a copy of the following 

documents: Appearance, and Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses were served on: 

 

Sarah R. Belloli 

Ryan 

101 W. Big Beaver, Suite 945 

Troy, Michigan 48084 

 

by enclosing the same in a properly addressed, sealed envelope, with first class postage fully 

prepaid, and by depositing the envelope in the United States mail. 

 

 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and 

belief. 

 

 

 

Dated: September 14, 2026 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suzanne C. Larsen

← View full record