Answer to Complaint _Bay City- K_N_(34834409.2).pdf
K & N Falcon LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Bay City Respondent · 26-000984-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
1
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
____________________
K & N Falcon LLC,
Plaintiff,
v
City of Bay City,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
MTT Docket No. 26-000984
Parcel No. 160-016-101-009-00
160-016-101-018-00
160-016-103-001-00
Joshua T. Shillair (P72674)
COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL
400 W 4th Street, Suite 350
Royal Oak, MI 48067
248.226.1632
Attorneys for Petitioner
Thomas M. Amon (P72351)
WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP
150 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 1500
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616.752.2000
Attorneys for Respondent
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO 2026 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL
PROPERTY TAX PETITION
City of Bay City ("Respondent"), through its attorneys, Warner Norcross + Judd LLP,
states for its Answer as follows:
1.
The Petitioner in this matter, K & N Falcon LLC, has the legal residence or
principal office address of 34550 Commerce rd. Fraser MI 48026. Petitioner is a party in interest
with respect to property taxes on property parcel no(s). (hereinafter referenced as the Subject
Property) 160-016-101-009-00 , 160-016-101-018-00 , 160-016-103-001-00. If the Subject
Property in this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the Subject
Property’s tax parcels are contiguous.Page 2
2 ANSWER: Admitted that the three parcels are contiguous. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 2. The Subject Property is located in Bay County. ANSWER: Admitted. 3. Respondent, City of Bay City of Bay County, assesses and collects property taxes on the Subject Property. ANSWER: Admitted. 4. The Subject Property is real property and is classified as Commercial. The Subject Property is presently used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that the Subject Property was originally designed to be used for Commercial purposes. ANSWER: Admitted that some of the parcels are classified as 201 Commercial Improved and one of the parcels is classified as 202 commercial vacant. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 5. Protest to the 2026 Board of Review was not made and is not required by law for the Subject Property. ANSWER: Admitted that protest was not required but only to the extent this appeal raises issues that are exempt from the board of review protest requirement under MCL 205.735a. To the extent further response is required, Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 6. The Subject Property’s address is: 915 Sibley, Bay City, MI 48706
Page 3
3 4050 Wilder, Bay City, MI 48706 4100 Wilder, Bay City, MI 48706 ANSWER: Admitted as to the addresses, with the modification that the Wilder addresses are on E Wilder Road. 7. This appeal involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) uniformity. ANSWER: Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge and/or information to admit or deny the allegations in this paragraph. 8. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Admitted that this is the tax year the petition purports to challenge. 9. The values for the Subject Property as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 160-016-101- 009-00 $119,900.00 $59,950.00 $59,950.00 2026 160-016-101- 018-00 $2,711,300.00 $1,355,650.00 $1,276,099.0 0 2026 160-016-103- 001-00 $3,508,500.00 $1,754,250.00 $1,619,904.0 0 ANSWER: Admitted that the assessments for 2026 are accurately set forth in this paragraph. 10. The 2026 assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value imposed upon all parcels of the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that:
Page 4
4 a. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value exceeds the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; b. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; c. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of the Subject Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and d. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and denies Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and dues process of law. ANSWER: Denied as untrue. 11. Petitioner contends that the actual values for the Subject Property are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 160-016-101- 009-00 $60,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 2026 160-016-101- 018-00 $2,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 2026 160-016-103- 001-00 $2,700,000.00 $1,350,000.00 $1,350,000.00 ANSWER: Admit that these are Petitioner’s contentions, denied as untrue that those contentions are accurate or reflect the value of the property. 12. The amount of value in contention for the Subject Property is:
Page 5
5 Tax Year Parcel Number Assessed Value in Contention 2026 160-016-101-009-00 $29,950.00 2026 160-016-101-018-00 $355,650.00 2026 160-016-103-001-00 $404,250.00 ANSWER: Admitted that these amounts, and the difference between any other amount asserted by Petitioner that is lower than the present value(s) established by Respondent, are in dispute. 13. Petitioner relies on the following specific facts to support the relief requested: Market sales and income data indicates that the subject property’s assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value exceed 50% of its actual market value. In addition, the cost less depreciation method Respondent utilizes to establish the Subject Property’s assessment at issue is not related to the Subject Property’s actual market value. ANSWER: Denied as untrue. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent asserts the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 2. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 3. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on part of the Respondent. 5. Respondent reserves the right to add, modify, or amend these Affirmative Defenses as discovery reveals.
Page 6
6 WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Bay City, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice, and/or that Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP Dated: September 9, 2026 By Thomas M. Amon (P72351) 150 Ottawa Avenue NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 616.752.2000 Attorneys for Respondent PROOF OF SERVICE Hallie Padron states that she is an employee of Warner Norcross + Judd LLP and that on the 9th day of September, 2026, she served the Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses upon Petitioner by First-Class Mail with proper postage affixed as follows: Joshua T. Shillair COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL 400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 /s/ Hallie Padron Hallie Padron