Answer to Petition- Utica Range.pdf
Utica Range Operations, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Clinton Respondent · 26-001484-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 UTICA RANGE OPERATIONS LLC, Petitioner, v CLINTON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001884 _____________________________________________________________________________/ SARAH R. BELLOLI MATTHEW DINGMAN RYAN LLC Representative for Petitioner 101 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, Clinton Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits only one parcel of real property has been identified as under appeal. 4. Respondent admits only one parcel of real property has been identified as under appeal.
Page 2
5. Respondent admits only one parcel of real property has been identified as under appeal. 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies the necessity of a protest to the Board of Review as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies the timeliness of Petitioner’s Petition as Petitioner’s Petition and the General Property Tax Act speak for themselves. 10. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 11. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 14. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s identification of the 2026 tax year as being at issue but denies any issue with the identified tax year. 15. Respondent admits only the 2026 tax year has been identified as under appeal. 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 $5,150,400 $2,575,200 $1,973,184 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $5,150,400 $2,575,200 $1,973,184
Page 3
18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $0 $0 $0 19. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petition in Paragraph 19 but denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons set forth above. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 20. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 20, including subparagraphs (a) and (b), for the reason that the same are untrue. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Clinton Township, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: September 4, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 4
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Respondent, Clinton Township, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 2. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 4. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 5. 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 Respondent or its agents. 6. Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 7. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 8. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State.
Page 5
9. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 10. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 11. Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 12. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 13. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 14. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan_______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Date: September 4, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 6
PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Sarah R. Belloli Sarah.belloli@ryan.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan_______________ Dated: September 4, 2026 Laura M. Hallahan