Answer and Affirmative Defenses - Team One Credit Union v. Watertown Twp.pdf
Tocu, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Watertown, Respondent · 25-002624-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TOCU, Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF WATERTOWN Respondent. MTT DOCKET NO. 25-002624 PPN: 240-009-200-010-04 Stephen Polter (P72591) POLTER LAW GROUP, PC Attorneys for Petitioner 2600 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite L100 Troy, MI 48084 (248) 213-6800 spolter@polterlaw.com Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) FOSTER, SWIFT, COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 mhomier@fosterswift.com tdillon@fosterswift.com RESPONDENT WATERTOWN TOWNSHIP’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Watertown Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. The Property Parcel Number of the Property is 240-009-200-010-04. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1. 2. The property identified above is Real property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous?
Page 2
ANSWER: Paragraph 3 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ANSWER: Paragraph 4 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number? ANSWER: Paragraph 5 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as 201 Comm. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s __ March __ July __ December Board of Review. ANSWER: Paragraph 7 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue: ANSWER: Paragraph 8 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue: ANSWER: Paragraph 9 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Sanilac County. The property or properties’ address is: 625 S Sandusky, Sandusky MI. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the Petition.
Page 3
11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local government unit): Sandusky/Watertown Twp. ANSWER: Respondent admits that Watertown Township established the assessment at issue. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: C/O TFI 1146 E Big Beaver Troy, MI 48084 ANSWER: Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12 of the Petition and, therefore, neither admits nor denies the allegations, but leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 14 of the Petition. 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years. ANSWER: Paragraph 15 contains no allegation to which a response is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 608,800 304,400 283,215 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 16 of the Petition.
Page 4
17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 450,000 225,000 225,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 158,800 79,400 58,215 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition as untrue as the values alleged by Petitioner in paragraph 17 are inaccurate. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief: Reduction of TCV and accordingly AV/TV to more reflect these accurate figures based on comps, condition, income, vacancy, etc. ANSWER: Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested for the reason that Petitioner’s amounts do not reflect accurate valuations of the Subject Property. The assessed, state equalized and taxable values were correctly determined and are based upon the correct application of proper principles. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested: ANSWER: Paragraph 20 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Watertown Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of
Page 5
action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. 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 the Respondent. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(f). b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 7. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). 8. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 10. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter.
Page 6
WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. Respectfully submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: August 19, 2025 By: _____________________________ Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 88397:00002:201832898-1