Rsvl - Kroger MTT Answer Aff Defs & POS.pdf

The Kroger Co Of Michigan Petitioner Vs. City Of Roseville Respondent · 26-001655-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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

MTT Docket No. 26-001655-TT 

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, 

Respondent. 

MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

ALEX MORSE 

TOMLINSON & MCGRAIL, PLLC 

DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Representatives for Petitioner 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 102 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Clinton Township, MI 

48036 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(586) 263-5050 

(317) 689-6467 — ofc 

ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com 

(917) 488-7825 — mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 

NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, Tomlinson 

& McGrail, PLLC, and in answer to Petitioner’s Petition, states as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits paragraph 3. 

4. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient 

information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 

5. 

Respondent admits paragraph 5. 

6. 

Respondent admits paragraph 6. 

7. 

Respondent admits paragraph 7.

10. 

11 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

Respondent admits paragraph 8. 

Respondent admits paragraph 9. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient 

information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 

Respondent denies paragraph 11 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

Respondent admits paragraph 12. 

Respondent admits paragraph 13. 

Defendant denies paragraph 14 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

Defendant denies paragraph 15 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

Defendant denies paragraph 16, including (a) thru (d), because it is untrue, 

leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees 

wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TOMLINSON & MCGRAIL, PLLC 

7 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Road, Ste. 102 

ATIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Clinton Twp., MI 48036 

2] carifies that the foregoing ing 

pi 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com 

Ey: {3} Overnight 

Co 

{J Hand Delj 

[=| Corie 

Signature 

Dated: September 18, 2026 

Ton

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO. OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner, 

VS. 

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 26-001655-TT 

MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) 

ALEX MORSE 

DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc. 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 — ofc 

(917) 488-7825 — mobile 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

TOMLINSON & MCGRAIL, PLLC. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 102 

Clinton Township, MI 

48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com 

RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, 

Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC, and for its Affirmative Defenses, states 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, the 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 to the mode and method applied in the case of all of the

10. 

properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash 

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 

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 is allegations that that 

the property’s taxable value is improper. 

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. 

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. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and 

state equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a 

cause of action. 

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. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional 

requirements.

11. 

Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new 

Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss 

the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees 

wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

TOMLINSON & MCGRAIL, PLLC 

TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 102 

Clinton Township, MI 48036 

(586) 263-5050 

ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com 

Dated: September 18, 2026 

~=RTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

os certifies that the foregoing Ai 

art 

above causes to each 

of 

tho 

Eo 

jive 

addresses disclosed €2 

4 

2 

20 

G5 On, 

/ 

{0} Cvernight Coul 

" [ Hand Deli 

[m] Conga 

Signature

← View full record