Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Petition.pdf
Kevinn Donovan, Tara Donovan Petitioners Vs. Township Of Grand Haven Respondent · 26-002270-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
#3636338v1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL _____________________ KEVINN DONOVAN and TARA DONOVAN, Petitioners, v GRAND HAVEN CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. _____________________________________/ MTT Docket No. 26-002270 RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Kevinn Donovan Tara Donovan 12067 Forest Beach Trail Grand Haven, MI 49417 (616) 552-2568 kevinndonovan@gmail.com _____________________________________/ Joshua D. Beard (P73388) Mika Meyers PLC Counsel for Respondent 900 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 632-8000 tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com jbeard@mikameyers.com Respondent, Grand Haven Charter Township, by and through its attorneys, Mika Meyers PLC, answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. Petitioners are individuals whose legal address is 12067 Forest Beach Trail Grand Haven, MI 49417. Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petitioner are admitted. 2. Respondent, Township of Grand Haven, levies and collects the property taxes on the subject property. Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition are admitted. 3. The property identification number is 16-70-07-16-351-007 and the property is classified as Residential real property. The subject property is presently used as Petitioner’s principal residence and consists of a detached single-family dwelling within the Beach Woods site condominium development.
Page 2
2 #3636338v1 Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 3 are admitted upon information and belief. 4. The property is located in Ottawa County and the school district of Grand Haven Area Public Schools and Ottawa Area Intermediate School District taxing districts. Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition are admitted. 5. This matter involves issues relating to 2026 true cash value, assessed/state equalized value, taxable value, land valuation methodology, and building valuation of the subject property. Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition are admitted upon information and belief. 6. For tax year 2026, Respondent initially determined an assessed value of $480,300. Following Petitioners’ March 2026 Board of Review protest, the assessed value was reduced to $467,446. The corresponding taxable value established by the Board of Review was $467,446. Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition are admitted. 7. On March 10, 2026, Petitioners appeared before the Grand Haven Charter Township Board of Review and appealed the 2026 assessment of the subject property. The Board subsequently determined that Petitioners had “provided sufficient information to warrant value change” and reduced the assessed value from $480,300 to $467,446, but did not grant the full relief requested by Petitioners. Answer: The allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition are admitted. 8. Petitioners contend that the remaining assessment is excessive and does not reflect the subject property’s usual selling price because the underlying valuation relies upon materially inaccurate property characteristics and valuation assumptions. Specifically: a. Respondent values the land at approximately $175,000 under its “Lake Michigan Influence” land table even though the subject property is not waterfront and possesses no deeded, private, exclusive, riparian, or legally enforceable access rights to Lake Michigan. Petitioners contend that comparable non-waterfront properties are more appropriately represented by Respondent’s “Southwest of US 31” land table, supporting a land value of approximately $110,000. b. Respondent’s 2026 property record card classified the dwelling as B+10, although the dwelling’s actual materials, systems, construction, characteristics, finishes, and functional utility are consistent with a lower building classification. Petitioners contend that the improvements are more appropriately classified as Class B-5 or BC.
Page 3
3 #3636338v1 c. Respondent’s property record contains material factual inaccuracies affecting valuation, including designation of the property as “Waterfront,” inaccurate bathroom/fixture information, duplicate fence entries, inaccurate effective-age information, and discrepancies concerning gross floor area. d. Petitioners presented evidence concerning these issues to the March 2026 Board of Review. Although the Board determined that Petitioners had provided sufficient information to warrant a value change, the underlying property characteristics and classifications giving rise to Petitioners’ appeal were not correct. e. The detailed factual, documentary, valuation, and legal basis for Petitioners’ contentions is set forth in Petitioners’ Brief in Support of Appeal and accompanying exhibits, submitted in support of this Petition and incorporated herein by reference. Answer: Respondent admits that the allegations contained in paragraph 8 constitute Petitioners’ contentions. However, Respondent denies as untrue that the assessment is excessive and does not reflect the subject property’s usual selling price. Respondent further denies as untrue that the underlying valuation relies upon materially inaccurate property characteristics and value assumptions. As to subparagraph a., Respondent admits that it valued the land at approximately $175,000 under its “Lake Michigan Influence” land table. Respondent further admits that the subject property is not waterfront on Lake Michigan. Respondent lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether the subject property possesses any deeded, private, exclusive, riparian or legally enforceable access rights to Lake Michigan and therefore neither admits nor denies those allegations. By way of further answer, Respondent did not rely on any deeded, private, exclusive, riparian or legally enforceable access rights to Lake Michigan in valuing the land under the “Lake Michigan Influence” land table. The remaining allegations in subparagraph a. are denied as untrue. As to subparagraph b., Respondent admits that the 2026 property record card classified the dwelling as B+10. The remaining allegations in subparagraph b. are denied as untrue.
Page 4
4 #3636338v1 As to subparagraph c., Respondent denies that the property record card contains material factual inaccuracies that affected the true cash, assessed and taxable values on the roll. As to subparagraph d., Respondent admits that the March 2026 Board of Review determined that Petitioners provided sufficient information to warrant a value change and made such a value change as it deemed correct based on the information provided. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in subparagraph d. as untrue. As to subparagraph e., Respondent admits that Petitioners filed a Brief in Support of an Appeal. Respondent denies that it was procedural proper to file the Brief and Respondent further denies that the improperly filed Brief is appropriately incorporated into the Petition by reference. By way of further answer, Respondent denies as untrue the allegations made in the Brief consistent with its denials in response to the Petition. 9. Petitioners contend that the 2026 true cash value of the subject property is $627,867, which yields a state equalized value of approximately $313,934 and a taxable value not exceeding $313,934. Petitioners therefore contend that the assessed/state equalized value is overstated by approximately $153,512 relative to the Board of Review value of $467,446. Answer: Respondent admits that the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Petition constitute Petitioners’ 2026 value contentions for the subject property. However, Respondent denies as untrue that Petitioners’ contentions accurately reflect the true cash, assessed , and taxable values for the subject property. 10. Petitioners respectfully request that the Tribunal: a. Determine the subject property’s 2026 True Cash Value to be approximately $627,867; b. Reduce the 2026 assessed/state equalized value from $467,446 to approximately $313,934; c. Determine the proper 2026 taxable value in accordance with applicable Michigan law;
Page 5
5 #3636338v1 d. Determine the appropriate land value based upon the subject property’s actual legal rights, location, access characteristics, and comparable market evidence; e. Determine the appropriate building value based upon the dwelling’s actual construction characteristics and quality; f. Correct or account for material factual inaccuracies affecting valuation; and g. Order any resulting refund, together with applicable interest, and grant such other relief as the Tribunal determines appropriate. Answer: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition because the allegations merely constitute Petitioners’ request for relief and no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petitioner are denied as untrue, as Respondent believes that the values currently on the tax roll accurately reflect the true cash, assessed and taxable values for the property at issue, such that no reduction in value, no correction of facts and no refund are warranted. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal affirm the true cash, assessed, state equalized and taxable value of the subject property as placed on the 2026 and subsequent tax rolls by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and grant Respondent its costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, MIKA MEYERS PLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: October 14, 2026 By: /s/ Joshua D. Beard Joshua D. Beard (P73388) 900 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 632-8000 tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com
Page 6
6 #3636338v1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Grand Haven Charter Township, through its attorneys, Mika Meyers PLC, in defense of the Petition filed by Kevinn Donovan and Tara Donovan, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. The Petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 2. Petitioner may not be a party in interest in this tax appeal and may lack standing to bring this appeal. 3. Petitioner’s tax appeal may be time-barred if Petitioner failed to comply with MCL 205.735a, or otherwise failed to timely file its tax appeal, or both. 4. Respondent reserves the right to add to these defenses. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal affirm the true cash, assessed, state equalized and taxable value of the subject property as placed on the 2026 and subsequent tax rolls by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and grant Respondent its costs, attorney’s fees, and such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, MIKA MEYERS PLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: October 14, 2026 By: /s/ Joshua D. Beard Joshua D. Beard (P73388) 900 Monroe Avenue, NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 632-8000 tax.tribunal.efile@mikameyers.com