City of Manistee - Divine Mercy - MTT 25-003340 - Appearance and Answer - final 11-17-25.pdf
Divine Mercy Of Manistee Diocese Of Gaylord, Petitioner Vs. City Of Manistee, Respondent · 25-003340-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
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL DEVINE MERCY OF MANISTEE / DIOCESE OF GAYLORD, Petitioner, v CITY OF MANISTEE, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-003340 PPN: 51-51-713-125-04 ____________________________/ Father James Bearss, Pastor for Divine Mercy Parish Representative for Petitioner 611 West North Street Gaylord, Michigan 49735 (231) 723-2619 jbearss@dioceseofgaylord.org Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 (616) 965-9340 toby@bloomsluggett.com ___________________________/ APPEARANCE NOW COMES attorney Toby Koenig, of the law firm of Bloom Sluggett, PC, and hereby enters his appearance on behalf of Respondent City of Manistee in this matter. Respectfully, Date: November 17, 2025 /s/Toby Koenig Toby Koenig Bloom Sluggett, PC Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave, NW Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL DEVINE MERCY OF MANISTEE / DIOCESE OF GAYLORD, Petitioner, v CITY OF MANISTEE, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-003340 PPN: 51-51-713-125-04 ____________________________/ Father James Bearss, Pastor for Divine Mercy Parish Representative for Petitioner 611 West North Street Gaylord, Michigan 49735 (231) 723-2619 jbearss@dioceseofgaylord.org Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503 (616) 965-9340 toby@bloomsluggett.com ___________________________/ ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITION NOW COMES Respondent through its attorneys, Bloom Sluggett, PC, and hereby submits its Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. There are no allegations in paragraph 3 of the petition and therefore no response is required. 4. There are no allegations in paragraph 4 of the petition and therefore no response is required. 5. There are no allegations in paragraph 5 of the petition and therefore no response is required.
Page 3
2 4920-7045-5161, v. 1 6. Admitted upon information and belief. 7. There are no allegations in paragraph 7 of the petition and therefore no response is required. 8. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegation in paragraph 8 of the petition and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent admits that no protest to the Board of Review was required. 9. There are no allegations in paragraph 9 of the petition and therefore no response is required. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegation in paragraph 12 of the petition and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Paragraph 13 is simply a restatement of Petitioner’s claims and therefore no response is required. 14. Admitted. 15. There are no allegations in paragraph 15 of the petition and therefore no response is required. 16. Denied. The correct values are as follows: AV/SEV: $478,800; TV: $478,800; TCV: $957,600. 17. Denied as untrue. 18. Denies as untrue. 19. Paragraph 19 alleges the relief requested by Petitioner, to which no response is required. 20. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegation in paragraph 20 of the petition and the attachment to the petition; therefore Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 4
3 4920-7045-5161, v. 1 WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s appeal with prejudice, and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees, and all such further and additional relief as this Tribunal may deem appropriate. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because the City of Manistee used valuation methods in compliance with the Constitution, state law, and prevailing State Tax Commission procedures. 3. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support standing to bring this appeal or that it is a proper party-in-interest. 4. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support its allegation that the taxable value of the subject property is improper. 5. Respondent reserves the right to identify further affirmative defenses as may become known through discovery. Dated: November 17, 2025 Respectfully submitted, BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC /s/ Toby Koenig Toby Koenig (P72367) Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9340
Page 5
4 4920-7045-5161, v. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE Tonya Voakes, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed by Bloom Sluggett, PC, and that on November 17, 2025, she served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance, Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Proof of Service by First Class Mail, postage paid, and by electronic mail upon: Father James Bearss, Pastor for Divine Mercy Parish 611 West North Street Gaylord, Michigan 49735 jbearss@dioceseofgaylord.org /s/ Tonya Voakes Tonya Voakes