City of Walker - Farm Fleet of Janesville Inc 26-000955 - Walker's Appearance of TK with Answer and Affirmative Defenses 8-6-26.pdf
Farm & Fleet Of Janesville, Inc Petitioner Vs. City Of Walker Respondent · 26-000955-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 FARM & FLEET OF JANESVILLE, INC, Petitioner, v CITY OF WALKER, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000955 Parcel No. 41-13-30-100-030 / Brian Thomas Representative For Petitioner 6615 Brotherhood Way Fort Wayne, IN 46825 (260) 637-8899 bthomas@integritytax.com Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorneys for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9340 toby@bloomsluggett.com / RESPONDENT’S APPEARANCE NOW COMES attorney Toby Koenig, of the law firm of Bloom Sluggett, PC, and hereby enters his appearance on behalf of Respondent City of Walker in this matter. Dated: August 6, 2026 Respectfully submitted by, BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC /s/ Toby Koenig Toby Koenig (P72367) Attorneys for Respondents City of Walker
Page 2
2 4897-9714-9380, v. 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL FARM & FLEET OF JANESVILLE, INC, Petitioner, v CITY OF WALKER, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000955 Parcel No. 41-13-30-100-030 / Brian Thomas Representative For Petitioner 6615 Brotherhood Way Fort Wayne, IN 46825 (260) 637-8899 bthomas@integritytax.com Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorneys for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9340 toby@bloomsluggett.com / RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Walker, through its attorneys hereby submits this Answer to Petitioner’s Petition filed in this matter. (1) Admitted. (2) Admitted. (3) There are no allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (4) There are no allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (5) There are no allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (6) Admitted. (7) There are no allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Petition and therefore no response is required.
Page 3
3 4897-9714-9380, v. 1 (8) There are no allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (9) There are no allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (10) Admitted. (11) Admitted. (12) Respondent lacks sufficient information and/or knowledge to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations with respect to Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. (13) The allegations in paragraph 13 merely involve a restatement of Petitioner’s claim to which no response is required. Respondent otherwise denies that the subject property was improperly assessed and denied that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. (14) Admitted. (15) There are no allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (16) Respondent admits that the values of the property set forth in Paragraph 16 of the petition reflect the values on the ad valorem tax roll. (17) Denied as untrue. (18) Respondent admits that Petitioner contends the values in dispute based on the allegations in paragraph 17; however, Respondent denies as untrue that the subject property is improperly assessed and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. (19) Paragraph 19 contains a request for relief to which no response is required; Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief, requested or otherwise. (20) Respondent admits that the subject property features a 107,800 square foot improvement being utilized for commercial retail. Respondent denies as untrue that an appraisal supports a much lower value. The last sentence of paragraph 20 contains a request for relief to which no response is required; to the extent a response is required, Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief, requested or otherwise. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Page 4
4 4897-9714-9380, v. 1 2. Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because the valuation methods used by Respondent comply with the Constitution, state law, and prevailing Michigan State Tax Commission procedures. 3. Respondent’s assessment reflects 50% of the subject property’s true cash value and the values on the roll, including the taxable value, comply with MCL 211.27a. 4. Petitioner may not be a party in interest capable of bringing this appeal as to the parcel at issue in this matter. 5. Petitioner’s claims may be barred in whole or in part for failing to allege sufficient facts to invoke the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction. 6. Respondent reserves the right to identify further affirmative defenses as may become known through discovery. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s appeal with prejudice and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees, and all such further and additional relief as this Tribunal may deem appropriate. Dated: August 5, 2026 Respectfully submitted by, BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC /s/ Toby Koenig Toby Koenig (P72367) Attorneys for Respondent City of Walker PROOF OF SERVICE Tonya Voakes, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed by Bloom Sluggett, PC, and that on August 6, 2026, she served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance, Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses, and Proof of Service by e-mail and First-Class Mail upon Brian Thomas at: /s/ Tonya Voakes Tonya Voakes Brian Thomas Representative For Petitioner 6615 Brotherhood Way Fort Wayne, IN 46825 (260) 637-8899 bthomas@integritytax.com