2026.07.24 Answer-Aff Def-POS 26-000705.pdf
Lake Michigan Petoskey Resort LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Resort Respondent · 26-000705-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL LAKE MICHIGAN PETOSKEY RESORT, LLC, Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF RESORT, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-000705 PARCEL NO. 24-13-18-01-300-040 ______________________________________/ Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Hallahan & Associates, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 ______________________________________/ RESPONDENTS ANSWER TO PROPERTY TAX PETITION (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 1. ☒ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number 24-13-18-01-300-040 Address 2531 Charlevoix Rd. Classification 201-Commercial Use Hotel County Emmet Sch Dist Petoskey Public Schools ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. ☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: ☐March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph.
Page 2
1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value. 4. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. 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. 5. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 645 Hulet Dr., Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. This appeal involves issues related to: ☒ the subject property’s true cash and taxable values ☐ the subject property’s taxable value only there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ uniformity of the subject property’s assessment ☐ the subject property’s 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. 7. The tax year at issue is 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash and taxable value for the 2026 tax year. 8. The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 24-13-18-01-300-040 6,344,000 3,172,000 3,024,203 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 9. Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 24-13-18-01-300-040 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 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.
Page 3
1TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value. 10. The values1 in dispute are. Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 24-13-18-01-300-040 4,344,000 2,172,000 2,024,203 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. 11. Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (a) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and (d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph, including subparts (a)-(d). Dated: July 24, 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
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL LAKE MICHIGAN PETOSKEY RESORT, LLC, Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF RESORT, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-000705 PARCEL NO. 24-13-18-01-300-040 ______________________________________/ Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Hallahan & Associates, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 TOWNSHIP OF RESORT, 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 5
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 6
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 24, 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
Page 7
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL LAKE MICHIGAN PETOSKEY RESORT, LLC, Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF RESORT, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-000705 PARCEL NO. 24-13-18-01-300-040 ______________________________________/ Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Hallahan & Associates, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 ______________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on July 24, 2026 she served a copy of Respondents Answer to Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Laura M. Hallahan Hallahan and Associates, P.C. 1750 S. Telegraph Road Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld