Answer to Petition - JFK v Novi 26-002831.pdf
Jfk Investment Company, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Novi Respondent · 26-002831-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 JFK INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-002831 v. CITY OF NOVI, Respondent. JFK INVESTMENT COMPANY ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH Joseph Kosik & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. Representative for Petitioner Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 43252 Woodward Avenue Gopi P. Patel (P77727) Suite 210 Attorneys for Respondent Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-5047 27555 Executive Drive (248) 333-2373 Suite 250 jrkosik@jfkinv.com Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 (248) 489-4100 jromer@rsjalaw.com gpatel@rsjalaw.com Respondent's Answer to Petition NOW COMES Respondent, City of Novi, by and through its Attorneys, ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Answer to Petitioner's Petition states as follows: 1. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 2. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 3. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, no allegation is made, so no response is necessary.
Page 2
4. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, no allegation is made, so no response is necessary. 5. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Petition, no allegation is made, so no response is necessary. 6. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 7. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 8. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, no allegation is made, so no response is necessary. 9. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Petition, no allegation is made, so no response is necessary. 10. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 11. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent denies the same as untrue and because the assessments were established by the City of Novi. 12. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 13. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 2
Page 3
knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 14. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 15. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Petition, no allegation is made, so no response is necessary. 16. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 17. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 18. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 19. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Petition, Respondent denies as untrue that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested. 20. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 21. Respondent further states the ratio of the average level of assessment in relation to true cash value in the assessment district is 50%, and the equalization factor was uniformly applied in the assessment district for the year in question. 3
Page 4
WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Novi, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. /s/ Jeremy J. Romer Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 489-4100 jromer@rsjalaw.com Dated: October 2, 2026 4
Page 5
Affirmative Defenses For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 1. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 2. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 3. Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable value is improper. 6. Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive at the respective equalized assessments. 7. Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent's taxing unit. 8. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state equalizations as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 5
Page 6
9. If Petitioner appeared at the Board of Review, Petitioner failed in its appearance before the Board of Review to specifically allege: A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the City of Novi, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. C. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. D. Sufficient evidence to enable the Board of Review to make a decision. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent's Board of Review, if a Board of Review appearance was required, constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to Respondent's Board of Review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 10. 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. 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner's property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 12. Petitioner may not be a party in interest to this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Novi, demands that Petitioner respond to these Affirmative Defenses, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks, respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable value of the subject property be 6
Page 7
affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed with prejudice, and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. /s/ Jeremy J. Romer Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 489-4100 jromer@rsjalaw.com Dated: October 2, 2026 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certified that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys and/or representatives of record by email on October 2, 2026. /s/ Dawn Hallman Dawn Hallman 7