Answer to Petition 26-002649.pdf
400 Trade Centre LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Portage Respondent · 26-002649-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 400 Trade Center, LLC, Petitioner, v City of Portage, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-002649 Parcel No. 39-10-01900-150-E _____________________________________________________________________________/ DANIEL L STANLEY (P57052) HONIGMAN LLP Attorney for Petitioner 222 N. Washington Square Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 377-0714 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent City of Portage, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 as to the parcel number and address of property, but lacks the information to respond to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. There is only 1 parcel at issue in this case. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
Page 2
2 4. Respondent admits that subject property is classified as commercial real. With respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit or that Petitioner is entitled to any relief as to those issues. 6. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for the reason that the assessment is neither excessive nor erroneous and the property was correctly valued when the assessment was determined. 9. Respondent denies that the assessment is not uniform, and denies that comparing the subject to other properties, without identifying those properties, in the City of Portage is relevant and denies that the comparison to the undefined greater Kalamazoo area or Michigan is relevant, correct, or appropriate. 10. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 10 for the reason that the properties are not identified with sufficient detail to respond, and also denies that comparing the subject’s assessment to those properties is relevant or appropriate. 11. Respondent denies that the subject’s assessment is incorrect or not-uniform. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the remainder of the allegations in
Page 3
3 Paragraph 11 for the reason that the properties are not identified and denies that said comparisons are relevant or appropriate. 12. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 13. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13, including subparagraphs, for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 14. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of the Petition, but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Portage requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.
Page 4
4 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: August 6, 2026 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent City of Portage asserts the following affirmative defenses: 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. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 3. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 4. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent or its agents. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 6. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the
Page 5
5 respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 7. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 8. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 9. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 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 has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin_______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Date: August 6, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 6
6 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Daniel L. Stanley, Esq. dstanley@honigman.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin_______________ Dated: August 6, 2026 Seth A. O’Loughlin