Answer_BSR 14_FINAL.pdf
Bsr 14 Mile LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak, Respondent · 25-002018-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 BSR 14 MILE LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF ROYAL OAK, Respondent. Docket No. 25-002018 Parcel No. 72-20-32-351-001 _____________________________________________________________________________/ STEWART L. MANDELL (P33781) HONIGMAN LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 39400 Woodward Avenue Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (313) 465-7420 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 PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, City of Royal Oak, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. 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. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 insofar as it is the entity that assesses and collects property taxes with relation to the parcel identified in the Petition. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to the stated values.
Page 2
2 4. Respondent admits that subject property is classified as industrial improved. With respect to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein or as to Petitioner’s definition of “good condition.” Therefore, Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies any implication that the subject property’s 2025 assessment is not reflective of the subject property’s condition as of December 31, 2024. 5. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 6. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute relative to the value of a loss but denies that such a loss has occurred. 7. Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 7 for the reason that the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 8. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a)- (d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 9. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of the Petition, but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs.
Page 3
3 WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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: August 15, 2025 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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
4 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
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: August 15, 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: Stewart L. Mandell, Esq. Honigman LLP slmandell@honigman.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher_______________ Dated: August 15, 2025 Kelsea M. Melcher