Answer, Aff Def & POS - 25-002321.pdf
Corlin Builders, Petitioner Vs. City Of Fenton, Respondent · 25-002321-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 CORLIN BUILDERS, Petitioner, v CITY OF FENTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-002321 PARCEL NO. 53-36-506-217 ______________________________________/ Ward D. Tubbs Jim Tubbs Tax Consultants Petitioner Representative G-8469 S. Saginaw Street Grand Blanc, MI 48439 (810) 444-1779 JTCD0543@gmail.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, CITY OF FENTON, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, and hereby answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. Property Parcel No: 53-36-506-217 (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.
Page 2
2 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? Yes No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- contiguous parcel.) ANSWER: N/A 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 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 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 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): N/A ANSWER: N/A
Page 3
3 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): N/A ANSWER: N/A 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Genesee County. The property or properties’ address is: 111 S Leroy St. Fenton, MI 48430 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): City of Fenton ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 8210 S. Saginaw St. Suite 2 Grand Blanc, MI 48439 ANSWER: 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 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.
Page 4
4 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash and taxable value for the 2025 tax year. 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 2025 5,555,600 2,777,800 2,777,800 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 2025 4,559,600 2,279,800 2,279,800 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 2025 996,000 498,000 498,000 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. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): The assessment when equalized exceeds 50% of True Cash Value. The property as improved suffers from physical, functional and economic depreciation.
Page 5
5 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): Sales of similar properties sell for considerably less than the value placed by the City. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and requests that this Tribunal deny Petitioner’s requests. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: July 25, 2025 _________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CORLIN BUILDERS, Petitioner, v CITY OF FENTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-002321 PARCEL NO. 53-36-506-217 ______________________________________/ Ward D. Tubbs Jim Tubbs Tax Consultants Petitioner Representative G-8469 S. Saginaw Street Grand Blanc, MI 48439 (810) 444-1779 JTCD0543@gmail.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent CITY OF FENTON, 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 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 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 25, 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 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CORLIN BUILDERS, Petitioner, v CITY OF FENTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-002321 PARCEL NO. 53-36-506-217 ______________________________________/ Ward D. Tubbs Jim Tubbs Tax Consultants Petitioner Representative G-8469 S. Saginaw Street Grand Blanc, MI 48439 (810) 444-1779 JTCD0543@gmail.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on July 25, 2025 she served a copy of Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Ward D. Tubbs Jim Tubbs Tax Consultants G-8469 S. Saginaw Street Grand Blanc, MI 48439 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld