Rsvl Ans, Aff Defs & POS.pdf
Global Comm Inv Gratiot 14 LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Roseville, Respondent · 25-002767-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GLOBAL COMM INC GRATIOT 14 LLC. Petitioner, vs. MTT Docket No. 25-002767 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Respondent. STEPHEN POLTER TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorney for Petitioner YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 2600 W. Big Beaver Attorneys for Respondent Suite 100 22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 Troy, MI 48084 Clinton Township, MI 48036 (248)213-6800 (586) 263-5050 spolter@polterlaw.com ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, York, Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and in answer to Petitioner’s Petition, states as follows: 1. Respondent admits paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits paragraph 2. 3. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 3 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 5. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 5 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 6. Respondent admits paragraph 6. 1
Page 2
7. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 7 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 8 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 9 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 10. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 10 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 11. Respondent admits paragraph 11. 12. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 12 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 13. Respondent denies paragraph 13 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 14. Respondent admits paragraph 14. 15. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 15 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. 16. Respondent admits paragraph 16. 17. Respondent denies paragraph 17 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 18. Respondent denies paragraph 18 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 19. Respondent denies paragraph 19 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 20. Respondent denies paragraph 20 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees
Page 3
wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. Respectfully submitted, YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. ne TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorneys for Respondent 22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 Clinton Township, MI 48036 (586) 263-5050 ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com Dated: August 27, 2025
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GLOBAL COMM INC GRATIOT 14 LLC. Petitioner, vs. MTT Docket No. 25-002767 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Respondent. STEPHEN POLTER TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorney for Petitioner YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. 2600 W. Big Beaver Attorneys for Respondent Suite 100 22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 Troy, MI 48084 Clinton Township, MI 48036 (248) 213-6800 (586) 263-5050 spolter@polterlaw.com ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, York, Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and for its Affirmative Defenses, states as follows: 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. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 3. Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.
Page 5
10. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support is allegations that that the property’s taxable value is improper. Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive at the respective equalized assessments. Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 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. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
Page 6
11. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. Respectfully submitted, YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. — 20 TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorneys for Respondent 22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 Clinton Township, MI 48036 (586) 263-5050 ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com Dated: August 27, 2025 2ys > Co