Answer, Affirmative Defenses & POS 25-001654.pdf
Steven M And Caroline A Angel, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Peninsula, Respondent · 25-001654-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL _______________________________________ STEVEN M. and CAROLINE A. ANGEL, Petitioner, v PENINSULA TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001654 Parcel No. 2811-609-008-00 ______________________________________/ Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) Honigman LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 222 North Washington Square Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 Tel: (517) 377-0714 dstanley@honigman.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 Tel: (517) 381-0100 Fax: (517) 381-5051 rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, Peninsula Township, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, hereby answers Petitioners’ Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. Petitioners’ principal address is 759 Hyslip Avenue, Westfield, NJ 07090. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel no(s). 11-609-008-00 (“Petitioner's Property”), at 15706 Shoreline Ct. located in Grand Traverse County, Michigan. If this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the tax parcels are contiguous. ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information
Page 2
2 upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving the Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent, Peninsula Twp., assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner’s Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioners’ Property to be $1,544,334 and assessed Petitioners’ Property at $1,577,600 which results in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. ANSWER: Respondent admits the taxable value is $1,544,334 of Petitioner’s Property for the 2025 tax year. However, the assessed value of the Petitioner’s Property is $1,605,000 for the 2025 tax year. 4. Petitioners’ Property is classified as Residential Real. Petitioners’ Property is presently used or available for use for residential purposes. Petitioners believe that Petitioners’ Property was originally designed to be used for residential purposes. ANSWER: Respondent admits only that the property is classified as Residential Real. As to the remainder of the allegations contained in the above paragraph, Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, which are therefore denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 5. This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value, and (d) uniformity. ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
3 6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. If P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest for Petitioner’s Property, a board of review protest was filed in March 2025. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a. The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; b. The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; c. The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, 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 are based upon the application of wrong principles; and, d. The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal
Page 4
4 protection and due process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and subparagraphs a. through d. Dated: September 18, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL _______________________________________ STEVEN M. and CAROLINE A. ANGEL, Petitioner, v PENINSULA TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001654 Parcel No. 2811-609-008-00 ______________________________________/ Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) Honigman LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 222 North Washington Square Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 Tel: (517) 377-0714 dstanley@honigman.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 Tel: (517) 381-0100 Fax: (517) 381-5051 rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com _______________________________________/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent Peninsula Township, by and through its attorneys, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner failed to state a claim for which its requested relief, or any other relief, may be granted. 2. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s conduct renders it estopped or otherwise barred from asserting the claims presented in the Petition. 3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, laches, and/or undue delay.
Page 6
2 4. Petitioner’s legal theories and requested relief are either not recognized as valid under Michigan law or have no application to the facts of this case. 5. Some or all of Petitioner’s claims and requests for relief are barred on jurisdictional or jurisprudential grounds as moot, not ripe, and/or not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and authority. 6. There is no issue of material fact, and Respondent is entitled to the dismissal of the Petition in its entirety and with prejudice. 7. Petitioner waived any right to assert the claims presented in the petition, or its claims are otherwise barred in whole or in part, by lack of standing, failure to be the real party in interest, agreement, consent, acquiescence, ratification, course of conduct or performance, promissory and/or other estoppel, misrepresentation, release, abandonment, or violation of law. 8. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent. 9. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to support its allegation that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% of the subject property’s true cash value or that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect. 10. Petitioner has asked this Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different that that utilized in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to Respondent’s remaining taxpayers.
Page 7
3 11. Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. 12. Petitioner’s characterization of the assessment(s) and taxes is contrary to law and refuted by documentary evidence. 13. Respondent reserves the right to amend and supplement these affirmative defenses as facts are learned through continuing investigation and discovery and as the Tribunal permits. Dated: September 18, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 8
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL _______________________________________ STEVEN M. and CAROLINE A. ANGEL, Petitioner, v PENINSULA TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001654 Parcel No. 2811-609-008-00 ______________________________________/ Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) Honigman LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 222 North Washington Square Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 Tel: (517) 377-0714 dstanley@honigman.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 Tel: (517) 381-0100 Fax: (517) 381-5051 rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com _______________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on September 18, 2025 she served a copy of Respondent’s Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Daniel L. Stanley Honigman LLP 222 North Washington Square Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld