answer to petition 8.25.26 Autozone.pdf
Autozone Development, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Scio Respondent · 26-001274-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Autozone Development, LLC Petitioner, MTT Docket No:26-001274 v ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX CASE Scio Township, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________/ Jason C. Long (P59244) Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, PC Attorneys for Petitioner 380 N Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 642-0333 FINK & FINK PLLC Attorneys for Respondent Mariah Evans Fink (P73757) 3025 Miller Rd Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone (734) 994-1077 Mariah.fink@finkandfink.com ______________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, Scio Township, by its attorneys, FINK & FINK, PLLC, answers the Petition as follows: 1. Respondent lacks knowledge of this allegation but takes Petitioner at its word. 2. Admit. 3. Admit. 4. Admit. 5. Admit. 6. Admit.
Page 2
2 7. Admit. 8. Admit. 9. Respondent acknowledges that this allegation contains Petitioner’s contention; however, Respondent denies that these values are accurate. 10. Respondent agrees that the calculations by Petitioner are correct. 11. Admit. 12. Denied for the reason that this allegation and its subparts are not true as follows: a. Respondent’s assessment of the property complies with the statutes and constitutional limitations on assessments. b. Respondent’s assessment is proper based on the standard practices for determining assessments in Michigan. c. Respondent’s assessment is not more than 50% of the true cash value and complies with the statutes and constitutional limitations on assessments. c. Respondent’s assessment of Petitioner’s property is not a violation of Petitioner’s rights because it is not at a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment within the assessment district and the assessment was determined using the same standard practice for all properties in the assessment district. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Petition be denied, that the assessment be sustained, and the Respondent granted its attorney fees and costs of suit. FINK & FINK, PLLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: August 25, 2026 BY: /s/ Mariah Evans Fink MARIAH EVANS FINK (P73757)