Answer to Severed Petition (Candace Properties).pdf
Candace Properties LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of West Bloomfield, Respondent · 25-002402-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 CANDACE PROPERTIES LLC, Petitioner, v CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF WEST BLOOMFIELD, Respondent. Docket No. 25-002402 Parcel No. X-18-19-101-019 ____________________________________________________________________________/ JOSHUA T. SHILLAIR (P72674) COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Attorney for Petitioner 400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 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 SEVERED PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, Charter Township of West Bloomfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent admits that Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to parcel number X-18-19-101-019. As to the remaining allegations, Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 2 of 5 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. 4. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5. 6. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 7. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9. 10. 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 $621,780 $310,890 $310,890 11. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 $621,780 $310,890 $310,890 12. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 $0 $0 $0 13. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to such relief for the reasons stated above.
Page 3
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 3 of 5 WHEREFORE, Respondent, Charter Township of West Bloomfield, 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: July -8, 2025 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Charter Township of West Bloomfield, 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
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 4 of 5 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
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 5 of 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: July 8, 2025 (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: Joshua T. Shillair, Esq. Collier’s International joshua.shillair@colliers.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ Dated: July 8, 2025 Laura M. Hallahan