Answer and Affirmative Defenses City of Clawson (MTT 26-000666).pdf

Clawson Plaza, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Clawson Respondent · 26-000666-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CLAWSON PLAZA, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF CLAWSON, 

Respondent. 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Docket No. 26-000666 

Parcel Nos.: 16-20-33-354-053 

and 16-20-33-354-056 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

(Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 

Respondent, City of Clawson, by and through its attorney, Ren Nushaj of Troy Law Center, City 

Attorney for the City of Clawson, answers the Petition filed by Clawson Plaza, LLC as follows. 

The numbered paragraphs below correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the Petition. Any 

allegation not expressly admitted is denied. 

1. Admitted that the Petition purports to appeal the two contiguous parcels identified 

therein, and admitted that parcels 16-20-33-354-053 (1212 W. 14 Mile Rd.) and 16-20-

33-354-056 (1206 W. 14 Mile Rd.) are classified 201-Commercial on Respondent’s 2026 

assessment roll. 

2. Admitted that no protest of the 2026 assessment was made to Respondent’s March Board 

of Review. Respondent denies any implication that the absence of a protest relieves 

Petitioner of any jurisdictional or procedural prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s 

jurisdiction. 

3. Admitted. 

4. Admitted. 

5. Admitted only that Petitioner appears as the record title holder of the subject parcels on 

Respondent’s assessment roll. To the extent this paragraph states a legal conclusion 

regarding Petitioner’s status as a party-in-interest, no response is required; to the extent a 

response is required, Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs, which has the effect of a 

denial under R 792.10235(2). 

6. Respondent is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations in this paragraph, which has the effect of a denial under R 

792.10235(2).

7. Admitted only that Petitioner has checked the box indicating that this appeal involves the 

subject property’s true cash and taxable values. To the extent this paragraph alleges that 

the values on Respondent’s 2026 assessment roll are incorrect, excessive, or unlawful, 

the allegations are denied. 

8. Admitted. 

9. Admitted that an attachment is appended to the Petition. Respondent admits that the true 

cash, state equalized, and taxable values set forth in the columns designated 

“Respondent” accurately reflect the values placed on the subject parcels on Respondent’s 

2026 assessment roll as finally determined. Respondent denies Petitioner’s contended 

values and denies the amounts stated under “Values in Dispute,” and affirmatively states 

that the values placed on the roll are lawful, uniform, and reflective of the subject 

parcels’ true cash value. 

10. Denied. Respondent specifically denies that the 2026 values, or the taxes levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid, unlawful, or operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer, and 

denies each of the subparagraphs as follows: 

a. Denied. 

b. Denied. 

c. Denied. Respondent affirmatively states that the subject parcels were assessed in 

accordance with the Michigan Constitution, the General Property Tax Act, and 

the assessment methodology approved by the State Tax Commission. 

d. Denied. Respondent further states that the allegations of this subparagraph are 

conclusory and are unsupported by any factual allegation identifying a 

comparable class of property, a mode of assessment, or any disparate treatment. 

e. Denied. Respondent affirmatively states that the taxable value of the subject 

parcels was lawfully uncapped under MCL 211.27a(3) following a transfer of 

ownership within the meaning of MCL 211.27a(6); that no exception set forth in 

MCL 211.27a(7) applies to the conveyance at issue; that MCL 211.27a(7)(k) is 

inapplicable on its face to the subject commercial parcels; and that Petitioner 

bears the burden of proving entitlement to any claimed exception. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Clawson, respectfully requests that the Tribunal deny the 

relief requested in the Petition, affirm the true cash, state equalized, and taxable values placed on 

the subject parcels for the 2026 tax year, determine the true cash value of the subject parcels to 

be not less than the values set forth on Respondent’s 2026 assessment roll, and grant Respondent 

such other relief as the Tribunal deems just, including costs. 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION OF VALUE 

Respondent contends that the following values are the correct true cash, state equalized, and 

taxable values of the subject parcels for the 2026 tax year:

Petitioner’s Contention 

Respondent’s Contention 

Parcel Number 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

TCV 

SEV 

TV 

16-20-33-354-053 

1,600,000 

800,000 

800,000 

2,848,820 

1,424,410 

1,424,410 

16-20-33-354-056 

700,000 

350,000 

350,000 

1,197,620 

598,810 

598,810 

Totals 

2,300,000 

1,150,000 

1,150,000 

4,046,440 

2,023,220 

2,023,220 

 

Respondent reserves the right to amend its contention of value upon completion of discovery, 

appraisal, and valuation analysis, including the right to contend for values greater than those set 

forth above. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ren Nushaj 

 

REN NUSHAJ (P72986) 

City Attorney, City of Clawson 

Attorney for Respondent 

5960 Livernois Rd. 

Troy, MI 48098 

(248) 649-1000 

Ren@TroyLawCenter.com 

Dated: August 26, 2026

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES 

Respondent, City of Clawson, states the following affirmative and special defenses, without 

assuming any burden of proof that the law places upon Petitioner: 

1. The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

2. Petitioner bears the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the subject 

property under MCL 205.737(3), and the Tribunal has an independent duty to make a 

finding of true cash value based upon the record evidence. Petitioner has offered no 

appraisal, valuation disclosure, or other competent evidence supporting its contended 

values. 

3. The assessments at issue were made in accordance with the Michigan Constitution of 

1963, art 9, § 3, the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq., including MCL 

211.27, 211.27a, and 211.34c, and the assessment manuals and methodology prescribed 

and approved by the State Tax Commission. 

4. The taxable value of the subject parcels was lawfully uncapped under MCL 211.27a(3) as 

a result of a transfer of ownership within the meaning of MCL 211.27a(6). No exception 

under MCL 211.27a(7), including but not limited to subdivisions (k) and (m), applies to 

the conveyance at issue, and Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a claimed 

exception applies. 

5. To the extent Petitioner claims that the conveyance at issue was an exempt transfer, 

Petitioner failed to timely file a property transfer affidavit and/or failed to furnish proof 

of the claimed exception to Respondent’s assessor upon request, and Petitioner is 

therefore precluded from relying upon that claim. 

6. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this contested case, in whole or in part, to the extent 

Petitioner failed to serve the Petition with the noted docket number within the time 

prescribed by R 792.10227(5). The Petition is dated April 20, 2026, while Petitioner’s 

Proof of Service reflects service on June 30, 2026. Respondent reserves the right to move 

for dismissal on this basis upon confirmation of the date the notice of docket number 

issued. 

7. Petitioner has failed to satisfy one or more of the jurisdictional prerequisites to invoking 

the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a, including the requirements applicable to 

the property’s classification. 

8. Petitioner’s allegations of fraud are not pleaded with the particularity required and are 

unsupported by any factual allegation. 

9. Petitioner is not a party-in-interest with respect to one or more of the parcels or tax years 

at issue, or otherwise lacks standing to prosecute this appeal.

10. The values placed upon the subject parcels are uniform with those placed upon 

comparable property within the City of Clawson and do not deny Petitioner equal 

protection, due process, or uniformity of taxation. 

11. Respondent requests that the Tribunal determine the true cash value of the subject parcels 

to be equal to or greater than the values on the 2026 assessment roll, and reserves the 

right to request an increase in those values based upon the evidence adduced. 

12. Respondent reserves the right to amend this Answer and to assert such further affirmative 

and special defenses as may become known through discovery or otherwise, including 

any defense that cannot presently be asserted for want of information. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Petition or, in the 

alternative, affirm the 2026 true cash, state equalized, and taxable values of the subject parcels as 

set forth on Respondent’s assessment roll, deny Petitioner any refund, and award Respondent its 

costs and such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ren Nushaj 

 

REN NUSHAJ (P72986) 

City Attorney, City of Clawson 

Attorney for Respondent 

5960 Livernois Rd. 

Troy, MI 48098 

(248) 649-1000 

Ren@TroyLawCenter.com 

Dated: August 26, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on the date set forth below a copy of Respondent’s Answer to 

Petition and Affirmative Defenses was filed with the Michigan Tax Tribunal through its 

electronic filing system and served upon counsel for Petitioner at the addresses below by first-

class mail and by electronic mail: 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ren Nushaj 

 

REN NUSHAJ (P72986) 

City Attorney, City of Clawson 

Attorney for Respondent 

5960 Livernois Rd. 

Troy, MI 48098 

(248) 649-1000 

Ren@TroyLawCenter.com 

Dated: August 26, 2026

← View full record