MT - Kroger Answer Aff Defs POS.pdf
The Kroger Co Of Michigan Petitioner Vs. Township Of Macomb Respondent · 26-001556-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 THE KROGER CO OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, vs. MTT Docket No. 26-001556 TOWNSHIP OF MACOMB, Respondent. MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) Timothy D. Tomlinson (P48519) ALEX MORSE Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC DuCharme, McMillen & Associates Inc. 22600 Hall Rd, Ste. 102 Representatives for Petitioner Clinton Township, MI 48036 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 586-263-5050 Indianapolis, IN 46240 ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com (317) 596-3260 nmsilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION NOW COMES the Respondent, Township of Macomb, 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 admits paragraph 3. 4. Respondent admits paragraph 4. 5. Respondent admits paragraph 5. 6. Respondent admits paragraph 6. 7. Respondent admits paragraph 7. 8. Respondent admits paragraph 8.
Page 2
10. 11. 12. 15. 16. Respondent admits paragraph 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 10 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. Respondent denies paragraph 11 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent admits paragraph 12. Respondent admits paragraph 13. Respondent denies paragraph 14 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies paragraph 15 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies paragraph 16 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. (a) Respondent denies paragraph (a) because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. (b) Respondent denies paragraph (b) because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. (c) Respondent denies paragraph (c) because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. (d) Respondent denies paragraph (d) because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
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, TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC /s/Timothy D. Tomlinson TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorneys for Respondent 22600 Hall Road, Ste. 102 Clinton Twp., MI 48036 (586) 263-5050 ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com Dated: August 31, 2026 ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE dargese Good en = 2 x E MRER Clo:
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL THE KROGER CO OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, VS. TOWNSHIP OF MACOMB, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001556 MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) ALEX MORSE DuCharme, McMillen & Associates Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com Timothy D. Tomlinson (P48519) Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC 22600 Hall Rd, Ste. 102 Clinton Township, MI 48036 586-263-5050 ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES the Respondent, Township of Macomb, by and through its attorneys, Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC, 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
Page 5
10. properties in the Respondents taxing unit for the year in question. 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, TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC /s/Timothy D. Tomlinson TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorneys for Respondent 22600 Hall Road, Ste. 102 Clinton Twp., MI 48036 (586) 263-5050 ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com Dated: August 31, 2026 =RTIFICATE OF SERVICE cortifies that the foregeing instrument was the above cause to each of the attorneys addresses disclosed ne = matied