Answer to Petition - Partridge Creek Holding.pdf
Partridge Creek Holding Company LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Clinton Respondent · 26-001619-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 DEPARTMENTOF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL PARTRIDGE CREEK HOLDING COMPANY LLC, Petitioner, v CLINTON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001619 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JEROME P. PESICK (P29039) JASON C. LONG (P59244) WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 380 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 642-0333 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 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, Clinton Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: The Parties 1. Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. The Subject Property
Page 2
2 3. Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 4. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4. 5. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. The 2026 Assessment 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s contention of value but denies that it reflects the property’s fair market value as of December 31, 2025. 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. 9. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute in the subject property’s valuation but denies Petitioner’s contentions of value have merit and further denies Petitioner is entitled to relief. 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. 10. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner but denies that those issues have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to relief. Respondent admits there is no issue relative to an addition or loss but denies Petitioner has a right to raise any additional claims at a later date. 11. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 11, including subparagraphs (a)- (d), 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. 12. Respondent admits the subject property’s assessment is uniform but denies it overestimated the subject property’s value. Conclusion and Request for Relief 13. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons set forth above.
Page 3
3 WHEREFORE, Respondent, Clinton Township, 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. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ 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: October 3, 2026 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Clinton Township, 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.
Page 4
4 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 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.
Page 5
5 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan_______________ 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: October 3, 2026 (248) 731-3089 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: Jerome P. Pesick jpesick@wwrplaw.com Jason C. Long jlong@wwrplaw.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan_______________ Dated: October 3, 2026 Laura M. Hallahan