Answer & Affirmative Defenses - 26-001577.pdf
Meridian Mall Anchor M LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Meridian Respondent · 26-001577-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MERIDIAN MALL ANCHOR M LLC, Petitioner, v MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001577 PARCEL NO. 33-02-02-22-101-006 ______________________________________/ Ellen G. Berkshire Representative for Petitioner Verros Berkshire, PC 1S660 Midwest Road Suite 300 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 (312) 604-3810 eberkshire@verrosberkshire.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, hereby answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. Property Parcel No: 33-02-02-22-101-006 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. The property identified above is x real personal. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous?
Page 2
2 Yes x No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- contiguous parcel.) ANSWER: Respondent admits that only one parcel number is listed on the petition. 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? _____Yes No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) ANSWER: N/A (left blank on petition). 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: N/A 6. The property identified above is classified as commercial-improved. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s March July December Board of Review. ANSWER: N/A (left blank on petition). 8. If a 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 (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A (left blank on petition). 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 (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A (left blank on petition).
Page 3
3 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Ingham County. The property or properties’ address is: 1982 Grand River Okemos, MI 48864 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Meridian Charter Township ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: Macy’s Retail Holdings 145 Progress Place Springdale, OH 45246 ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, which is therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): x the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? Yes ___No uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL 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. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash and taxable values for the 2026 tax year.
Page 4
4 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 (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: N/A 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 3,955,000 1,977,500 1,977,500 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 1,500,000 750,000 750,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 2,455,000 1,227,500 1,227,500 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses.
Page 5
5 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. ANSWER: Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s requests. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): The equalized assessment of the property exceeds 50% of its true cash value in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations; The assessment on the property is unlawful and is based upon the application of the wrong principles and thereby operates as a fraud upon the taxpayer; The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner in that the assessment is at a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment within the assessment district. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent July 8, 2026 _________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MERIDIAN MALL ANCHOR M LLC, Petitioner, v MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001577 PARCEL NO. 33-02-02-22-101-006 ______________________________________/ Ellen G. Berkshire Verros Berkshire, PC Representative for Petitioner 1S660 Midwest Road Suite 300 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 (312) 604-3810 eberkshire@verrosberkshire.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent MERIDIAN CHARTER 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 7
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 than 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 8
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: July 8, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100