Hastings - MBH NNN Investments LLC 26-001189 Respondent's Answer - final 8-17-26.pdf
Mbh Nnn Investments LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Hastings Respondent · 26-001189-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 MBH NNN Investments, LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF HASTINGS, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001189 Parcel No. 08-55-140-012-00 / Brian Thomas Representative For Petitioner 6615 Brotherhood Way Fort Wayne, IN 46825 (260) 637-8899 bthomas@integritytax.com Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorneys for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9340 toby@bloomsluggett.com / RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Hastings, through its attorneys hereby submits this Answer to Petitioner’s Petition filed in this matter. (1) Respondent denies the property parcel number as alleged by Petitioner in Paragraph 1 as the correct property parcel number is 08-55-140-012-00. (2) Respondent admits that the subject property is real property. (3) There are no allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (4) There are no allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (5) There are no allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Petition and therefore no response is required. (6) Admitted.
Page 2
{06982-001-00161464.1}
2
4897-9520-8647, v. 1
(7) There are no allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Petition and therefore no response is
required.
(8) There are no allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Petition and therefore no response is
required.
(9) There are no allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Petition and therefore no response is
required.
(10) Respondent admits that the subject property is located in Barry County and further
admits the address as alleged by Petitioner.
(11) Respondent admits that the City of Hastings established the assessment at issue.
(12) Respondent lacks sufficient information and/or knowledge to form a belief as to the
truthfulness of the allegations with respect to Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address
and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
(13) The allegations in paragraph 13 of Petitioner’s petition merely restate Petitioner’s
claim and therefore no response is required.
(14) Respondent admits that the tax year at issue is 2026.
(15) There are no allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Petition and therefore no response is
required.
(16) Respondent admits the values alleged in Paragraph 16 of the Petition reflect the 2026
ad valorem assessment for the subject property.
(17) Denied as untrue.
(18) Respondent admits that Petitioner contends the values in dispute based on the
allegations in paragraph 17; however, Respondent denies as untrue that the subject property is
improperly assessed and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief.
(19) Paragraph 19 contains a request for relief to which no response is required;
Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief, requested or otherwise.
(20) Respondent admits that the subject property contains an improvement that is used as
a car wash. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20 and further denies that
Petitioner is entitled to any relief.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1.
Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Page 3
{06982-001-00161464.1}
3
4897-9520-8647, v. 1
2.
Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because the valuation methods
used by Respondent comply with the Constitution, state law, and prevailing Michigan State Tax
Commission procedures.
3.
Respondent’s assessment reflects 50% of the subject property’s true cash value and
the values on the roll, including the taxable value, comply with MCL 211.27a.
4.
Petitioner may not be a party in interest capable of bringing this appeal as to the
parcel at issue in this matter.
5.
Petitioner’s claims may be barred in whole or in part for failing to allege sufficient
facts to invoke the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
6.
Respondent reserves the right to identify further affirmative defenses as may
become known through discovery.
WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s appeal with
prejudice and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees, and all such further and additional relief
as this Tribunal may deem appropriate.
Dated: August 17, 2026
Respectfully submitted by,
BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC
/s/ Toby Koenig
Toby Koenig (P72367)
Attorneys for Respondent
PROOF OF SERVICE
Tonya Voakes, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed by Bloom
Sluggett, PC, and that on August 17, 2026, she served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance and
Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses with Proof of Service by E-mail and U.S. First Class
mail upon:
Brian Thomas
6615 Brotherhood Way
Fort Wayne, IN 46825
bthomas@integritytax.com
/s/ Tonya Voakes
Tonya Voakes