Brusin LLC v City of Midland (25-002478) Respondent's Answer in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend Petition.pdf

Brusin LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Midland, Respondent · 25-002478-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

BRUSIN, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF MIDLAND, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No.: 25-002478 

SHINNERS & COOK, P.C. 

By: 

Andrew J. Balzer (P82952) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

5195 Hampton Place 

Saginaw, MI 48604-9576 

(989) 799-5000 

abalzer@shinnerscook.com 

BRAUN KENDRICK FINKBEINER P.L.C. 

By: 

Francis J. Keating (P39223) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4301 Fashion Square Blvd. 

Saginaw, MI 48603 

(989) 498-2100 

frakea@braunkendrick.com 

Christopher G. Komara (P61053) 

City Attorney/Attorney for Respondent 

City of Midland 

333 W. Ellsworth St. 

Midland, MI 48640 

(989) 837-3395 

ckomara@midland-mi.org 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PETITION 

NOW COMES Respondent, City of Midland, by and through 

its attorneys, Braun 

Kendrick Finkbeiner P.L.C., and for its Answer in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend Petition, states as follows: 

1. 

Admitted. 

2. 

Admitted. 

3. 

Admitted. 

4896-3751-9025, v. 1

4. 

Admitted. 

S. 

Admitted. 

6. 

Admitted. 

7. 

Admitted. 

8. 

Admitted. 

9. 

Respondent admits only that Michigan law only permits a Petitioner to amend a 

property tax petition by leave from the Michigan Tax Tribunal. 

10. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding what Petitioner requests 

beyond that which is stated in its Motion for Leave to Amend Petition. Respondent affirmatively 

states that Petitioner’s proof of service for this motion indicates this Motion for Leave to Amend 

was 

for Docket No. 24-001469. The hearing for Docket No. 24-001469 has already been 

concluded, and it would be improper to add tax year 2026 to that docket. 

11. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information regarding what Petitioner requests 

beyond that which is stated in its Motion for Leave to Amend Petition. Respondent affirmatively 

states that neither the tribunal rules nor tribunal practice require or suggest an amended petition 

be filed to add an additional year to a pending appeal. 

12. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what 

Petitioner asks. Petitioner has already appealed for tax years 2024 and 2025. 

13 

Accordingly, Respondent requests the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s motion to amend 

petition to add tax year 2026. 

WHEREFORE, 

Respondent 

requests 

this 

Honorable 

Tribunal 

provide 

it 

with 

the 

following relief: 

A. 

Deny Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition; 

4896-3751-9025, v. 1

B. 

Provide Respondent with such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. 

BRAUN KENDRIC 

NKBE 

ILC. 

Dated: June /d 

2026 

By: 

FRANCISJ. 

KHATING (P39223) 

Atto: 

for Respondent 

4896-3751-9025, v. 1

← View full record