Great Arbor Properties LLC 26-001120 Answer to Petition 9-22-26.pdf
Great Arbor Properties, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Pittsfield Respondent · 26-001120-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 S E C R E S T W A R D L E STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GREAT ARBOR PROPERTIES, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001120 Parcel No. L-12-01-200-004 -vs- TOWNSHIP OF PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________________________/ LAW OFFICE OF PETER ELLENSON Peter Ellenson (P47383) Attorney for Petitioner 30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 500 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 (248) 406-4443 peter@ellensonlaw.com SECREST WARDLE Alana Knox (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 aknox@secrestwardle.com _________________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, TOWNSHIP OF PITTSFIELD, by and through its attorneys, SECREST WARDLE, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states as follows: 1. Answering paragraph 1, Respondent admits that the property that is subject to this appeal is identified as Property Parcel No. L-12-01-200-004. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
2 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 2. Answering paragraph 2, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 2 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 3. Answering paragraph 3, Respondent admits the same. 4. Answering paragraph 4, Respondent admits that Property Parcel No. L-12-01-200-004 is classified as commercial real property (201). 5. Answering paragraph 5, Respondent admits that Property Parcel No. L-12-01-200-004 is located in Washtenaw County. 6. Answering paragraph 6, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 7. Answering paragraph 7, Respondent admits that the tax year at issue is 2026. 8. Answering paragraph 8, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. Answering paragraph 9, Respondent admits that the true cash value, assessed value and the taxable value as set for the 2026 year on Respondent’s assessment roll are as follows: Parcel Number Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value L-12-01-200-004 2026 $1,264,472 $632,236 $419,374 10. Answering paragraph 10, Respondent denies that the subject property’s 2026 true cash value, assessed value and taxable values were no higher than:
Page 3
3 S E C R E S T W A R D L E Parcel Number Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value L-12-01-200-004 2026 $600,000 $300,000 $300,000 11. Answering paragraph 11, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 12. Answering paragraph 12, Respondent denies that this Honorable Tribunal should order the Respondent to correct its tax rolls to reflect the Petitioners denial of the taxable, assessed and state equalized values reflected above and to issue refunds, and to pay interest and costs. 13. Answering paragraph 13, Respondent denies that the assessed and taxable values exceed 50% of true cash value. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 13 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent, TOWNSHIP OF PITTSFIELD, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed value and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 Dated: September 22, 2026 (248) 851-9500
Page 4
4 S E C R E S T W A R D L E AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For its further Answer to Petitioner’s Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent respectfully requests unto this Honorable Tribunal 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, 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 with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. 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 its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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.
Page 5
5 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 9. Petitioner failed to allege to the Board of Review that: A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the Township, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. C. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent’s Board of Review constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Amended Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to Respondent’s Board of review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 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 add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent, TOWNSHIP OF PITTSFIELD, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased and that Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax
Page 6
6 S E C R E S T W A R D L E Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 Dated: September 22, 2026 (248) 851-9500 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 22, 2026, a copy of the foregoing document, Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Petition and Affirmative Defenses, was filed electronically with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, and was served upon: Law Office of Peter Ellenson Peter Ellenson, Esq. 30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 500 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 by depositing same in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon. /s/ Tamera Briggs Tamera Briggs (11021957.1)