Answer_Mishpat_FINAL.pdf

Mishpat Kollel Choshen, Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield, Respondent · 25-002507-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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MISHPAT KOLLEL CHOSHEN, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-002507 

 

Parcel No(s). 76-24-25-131-001 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

STEPHEN POLTER 

POLTER LAW GROUP 

Attorney for Petitioner 

2600 W. Big Beaver, Suite L100 

Troy, MI 48084 

(248) 213-6800 

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 City of Southfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 as no claim is 

made.

4. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 as no claim is 

made. 

5. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 as no claim is 

made. 

6. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 as no claim is 

made. 

8. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 as no claim is 

made. 

9. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 as no claim is 

made. 

10. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 

11. 

Respondent admits the assessment at issue was established by the City of 

Southfield. 

12. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

13. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but 

denies that those issues have merit and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

14. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2025 tax year 

but denies any issue with the identified year. 

15. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 as no claim 

is made.

16. 

The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

 

17. 

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

 

 

18. 

The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$0 

$0 

$0 

 

19. 

Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested in Paragraph 19 

as 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. 

20. 

Respondent denies the attachments included with Petitioner’s Petition justify a 

reduction in the subject property’s 2025 assessment values. 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. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Southfield, 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. 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$822,060 

$411,030 

$361,412 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

State Equalized Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$822,060 

$411,030 

$361,412

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 

Dated: August 19, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent, City of Southfield, 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. 

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: August 19, 2025 

(248) 731-3089

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: 

 

Stephen Polter 

spolter@polterlaw.com 

 

I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

 

 

/s/Kelsea M. Melcher_________________ 

Dated: August 19, 2025 

Kelsea M. Melcher

← View full record