2026.09.30 Answer Affirm Def and POS 26-001377.pdf
Iip-Mi 1 LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Windsor Respondent · 26-001377-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 IIP-MI 1 LLC, Petitioner, v WINDSOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001377 PARCEL NO. 23080-003-100-023-01 ______________________________________/ Sarah R. Belloli Matthew Dingman Joan Kleiner Ryan, LLC Petitioner’s Representative 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 Sarah.belloli@ryan.com Matthew.dingman@ryan.com Joan.kleiner@ryan.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 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No: 23080-003-100-023-01 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. The property identified above is ☑ real ☐ personal. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? ☐ Yes ☐ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each noncontiguous parcel.) N/A ANSWER: N/A
Page 2
4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ☐ Yes ☐ No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) N/A ANSWER: N/A 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: N/A 6. The property identified above is classified as 301 Industrial-Improved ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s ☐ March ☐ July ☐ December Board of Review. No protest to the Board of Review was required. 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. 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 (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: N/A 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 (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: N/A
Page 3
10. The property or properties at issue are located in Eaton County. The property’s address is: 9410 Davis Hwy, Dimondale, MI 48821 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Windsor Charter Township ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 11440 W Bernardo Ste 100, San Diego, CA 92127 ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): ☑ the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values ☐ the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment ☐ the property or the properties’ 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. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash value and taxable value for the 2026 tax year. 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 (attach additional page if necessary): N/A ANSWER: N/A
Page 4
16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $12,196,600 $6,098,300 $6,098,300 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 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. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $4,196,600 $2,098,300 $2,098,300 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. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Petitioner respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal enter an order: (a) reducing the 2026 True Cash Value, State Equalized Value, and Taxable Value of the subject property to the values set forth in paragraph 17 above; (b) directing Respondent to refund to Petitioner all taxes paid in excess of those properly owed, plus statutory interest; and (c) granting such other and further relief as is just and equitable. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s requests 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary):
Page 5
A. The equalized assessment thus imposed on the subject property is more than 50% of its true cash value in violation of the applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The assessment is based on improper or inaccurate valuation methodology, including but not limited to the use of non-representative data, failure to account for relevant property characteristics, and/or application of incorrect assumptions. As a result, the assessment is not uniform with comparable properties and results in an excessive and unlawful tax burden. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent September 30, 2026 _________________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL IIP-MI 1 LLC, Petitioner, v WINDSOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001377 PARCEL NO. 23080-003-100-023-01 ______________________________________/ Sarah R. Belloli Matthew Dingman Joan Kleiner Ryan, LLC Petitioner’s Representative 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 Sarah.belloli@ryan.com Matthew.dingman@ryan.com Joan.kleiner@ryan.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 WINDSOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, 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.
Page 7
2 3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, laches, and/or undue delay. 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.
Page 8
3 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. 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: September 30, 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 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL IIP-MI 1 LLC, Petitioner, v WINDSOR CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001377 PARCEL NO. 23080-003-100-023-01 ______________________________________/ Sarah R. Belloli Matthew Dingman Joan Kleiner Ryan, LLC Petitioner’s Representative 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 Sarah.belloli@ryan.com Matthew.dingman@ryan.com Joan.kleiner@ryan.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 September 30, 2026 she served a copy of Respondents Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Sarah R. Belloli Matthew Dingman Joan Kleiner Ryan, LLC 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld