Answer to Petition - Three site Investment 26-001623.pdf
Three Site Investment LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Green Oak Respondent · 26-001623-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL THREE SITE INVESTMENT LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001623 v. GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP, Respondent. COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Joshua T. Shillair (P72674) Attorney for Petitioner 400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 226-1632 2(248) 226-1633 fax joshua.shillair@colliers.com ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) Gopi P. Pate; (P77727) Attorneys for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 (248) 489-4100 jromer@rsjalaw.com gpatel@rsjalaw.com Respondent's Answer to Petition NOW COMES Respondent, TOWNSHIP OF GREEN OAK, by and through its Attorneys, ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Answer to Petitioner's Petition, states as follows: 1. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proof. 2. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same.
Page 2
2 3. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 4. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, Respondent admits that the property is classified as alleged; as to the remainder of the allegations, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 5. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 6. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 7. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 8. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 9. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Petition, Respondent admits the same. 10. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and its subparts of the Petition, Respondent denies the same as untrue. 11. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient
Page 3
3 knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 12. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 13. As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 14. Respondent further states the ratio of the average level of assessment in relation to true cash value in the assessment district is 50%, and the equalization factor was uniformly applied in the assessment district for the year in question. WHEREFORE, Respondent, TOWNSHIP OF GREEN OAK, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. Respectfully submitted, ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. /s/ Jeremy J. Romer Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 489-4100 jromer@rsjalaw.com Dated: September 2, 2026
Page 4
4 Affirmative Defenses For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each: 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, 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 with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question. 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. 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 its allegations that the property's taxable value is improper. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state equalizations as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action.
Page 5
5 9. If Petitioner appeared at the Board of Review, Petitioner failed in its appearance before the Board of Review to specifically allege: A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the Township of Green Oak, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. C. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. D. Sufficient evidence to enable the Board of Review to make a decision. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent's Board of Review, if a Board of Review appearance was required, constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to Respondent's Board of Review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 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 may not be a party in interest to this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent, TOWNSHIP OF GREEN OAK, demands that Petitioner respond to these Affirmative Defenses, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks, respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable value of the subject
Page 6
6 property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed with prejudice, and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. Respectfully submitted, ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. /s/ Jeremy J. Romer Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 489-4100 jromer@rsjalaw.com Dated: September 2, 2026 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certified that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys and/or representatives of record herein by email on September 2, 2026. /s/ Dawn Hallman Dawn Hallman