Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Severed Petition 26-002554.pdf
Traverse City Curling Club Inc Petitioner Vs. Township Of Garfield Respondent · 26-002554-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________ TRAVERSE CITY CURLING CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v. TOWNSHIP OF GARFIELD, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-002554 Parcel ID No. 28-05-014-049-21 ______________________________________________________________________________ Andrew M. Harris (P62265) MADDIN HAUSER Attorney for Petitioner One Towne Square-Fifth Floor Southfield, MI 48076 (248) 827-1866 aharris@maddinhauser.com Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) Michael D. Homier (P60318) FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 tdillon@fosterswift.com mhomier@fosterswift.com ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT GARFIELD TOWNSHIP’S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Garfield Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. Property Parcel No.: 28-05-014-049-21. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition. 2. The property identified above is: Real. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition.
Page 2
3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? ANSWER: Paragraph 3 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ANSWER: Paragraph 4 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number? ANSWER: Paragraph 5 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as: Commercial. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s ____ March __X__ July ____ December Board of Review. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 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: See attached Petition filed 7-31-25; Case No 25-003028. ANSWER: Paragraph 8 does not appear to contain any allegations to which a response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8. 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 (May 31 or July 31 of the tax year
Page 3
involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessments at issue. See Petition filed 7-31-25; Case No. 25-003028. ANSWER: Paragraph 9 does not appear to contain any allegations to which a response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9. 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Grand Traverse County. The property or properties’ address is: 1712 S. Garfield Ave. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by: Township of Garfield. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: Traverse City Curling Club, Inc., 1712 S. Garfield Ave., Traverse City, MI 49686. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues related to: the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition. 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: See Petition filed 7-31-25; Case No. 25-003028. ANSWER: Paragraph 15 does not appear to contain any allegations to which a response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15.
Page 4
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 2026 $5,063,700 $5,063,700 $5,063,700 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $4,590,000 $2,295,000 $2,245,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $473,700 $2,768,700 $5,580,903 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief: A taxable value aligned with its argument in this petition if the exemption/valuation arguments in 25-003028 are unsuccessful. ANSWER: Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested. 20. Petitioner relies on the following to support the relief requested: This petition is necessary because of the order granting petitioner’s motion to amend in Case No 25-003028. ANSWER: To the extent that a response is required, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition.
Page 5
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Garfield Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(f). b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 7. The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). 8. Petitioner failed to properly protest the assessment and request either an exemption from ad valorem taxation or the correction of any qualified error as that term is defined in MCL
Page 6
211.53b from Respondent’s July Board of Review. 9. The Petition was not timely filed pursuant to MCL 205.735a(6) and the Tribunal therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 10. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 12. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. Respectfully Submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: September 29, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 29151:00003:203104163-1