25-00377608922120260204153109.pdf
Earl J Mock Declaration Of Trust, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Burr Oak, Respondent · 25-003776-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 EARL J. MOCK DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED DECEMBER 11, 1996, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003776 v TOWNSHIP OF BURR OAK, Respondent. Michael J. Caywood (P59905) Robert E. Thall (P46421) Tiffany E. Edwards (P83462) BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, HaasCaywood, PC KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 21 W. Chicago Street 470 W. Centre Ave., Ste. A Coldwater, MI 49036 Portage, MI 49024 (517) 278-4410 269-382-4500 mike@haasscaywood.com thall@michigantownshiplaw.com tiffany @haascaywood.com ANSWER TO PETITION WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Burr Oak Township, states the following in response to the Petition of Appeal filed by Plaintiff. 1. In response to paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. 2. In response to paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations
Page 2
10. 11. In response to paragraph 4 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 5 of the Petition, Respondent admits allegation therein. In response to paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. Subject Property In response to paragraph 8 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 9 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. Underlying Facts In response to paragraph 10 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 11 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs.
Page 3
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. In response to paragraph 13 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 14 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 15 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 16 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 17 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. Uncapping of Taxable Value In response to paragraph 18 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein that the assessor uncapped the taxable value of the subject property. However, concerning the rest of the allegations contained herein, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 19 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein.
Page 4
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. In response to paragraph 21 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 22 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 23 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 24 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 25 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 26 of the Petition, Respondent admits the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 27 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations therein. Argument Paragraph 28 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the
Page 5
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. In response to paragraph 30 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 31 of the Petition, the facts of the case speak for itself. In response to paragraph 32 of the Petition, the facts of the case speak for itself. In response to paragraph 33 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 34 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 35 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 36 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 37 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 38 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 39 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 40 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 41 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 42 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 43 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. Paragraph 44 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, Respondent denies the allegations contained herein. In response to paragraph 45 of the Petition, the quoted case law speaks for itself. Paragraph 46 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. In response to paragraph 47 of the Petition, the cited case law speaks for itself.
Page 6
50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. In response to paragraph 50 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 51 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. In response to paragraph 52 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to form a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. Paragraph 53 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, the cited law speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 54 of the Petition, the cited law speaks for itself. Paragraph 55 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, Respondent denies the implication by Petitioner contained herein. Paragraph 56 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be required, the cited case speaks for itself. In response to paragraph 57 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations therein. Paragraph 58 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the
Page 7
59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. Paragraph 59 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent a response may be warranted, Respondent denies the implication claimed by Petitioner herein. In response to paragraph 60 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations therein. Paragraph 61 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 62 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 63 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. Paragraph 64 calls for a legal conclusion for which no response is required. In response to paragraph 65 of the Petition, Respondent denies the allegations therein. In response to paragraph 66 of the Petition, Respondent lacks information to forma a belief as to the truth of the assertion herein, as such Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves the Petitioner to its strictest proofs. No response required. No response required. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal enter an Order denying the relief requested by Petitioner and uphold and affirm the decision of the Township Assessor to uncap the Petitioner’s properties that are subject to this appeal, and require Petitioner to pay Respondent’s costs and attorney fees.
Page 8
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Please take notice that Respondent may rely on one or more of the following affirmative
defenses:
1.
Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
2.
The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner and/or the subject property.
3.
The service of process was insufficient.
4.
Respondent reserves the right to file such additional affirmative defenses as may
become apparent pursuant to discovery procedures during the pendency of this matter.
WHEREFORE Respondent requests that the Tribunal enter a determination of no cause in
its favor, and such other and further relief as is appropriate including costs and attorney fees.
Respectfully submitted,
BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER
i
Rober{ E. Thall, Atfornef for Respondent
Date: February 4, 2025Page 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EARL J. MOCK DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED DECEMBER 11, 1996, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003776 v TOWNSHIP OF BURR OAK, Respondent. Michael J. Caywood (P59905) Robert E. Thall (P46421) Tiffany E. Edwards (P83462) BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, HaasCaywood, PC KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 21 W. Chicago Street 470 W. Centre Ave., Ste. A Coldwater, MI 49036 Portage, MI 49024 (517) 278-4410 269-382-4500 mike@haasscaywood.com thall@michigantownshiplaw.com tiffany@haascaywood.com APPEARANCE The law firm of Bauckham, Thall, Seeber, Kaufman & Koches, P.C., enters this appearance for and on behalf of Respondent, Township of Burr Oak, in this matter. Respectfully submitted, BAUCKHAM, SPARKS, THALL, SEEBER, & KAUFMAN, P.C.
Page 10
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EARL J. MOCK DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED DECEMBER 11, 1996, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003776 \% TOWNSHIP OF BURR OAK, Respondent. Michael J. Caywood (P59905) Robert E. Thall (P46421) Tiffany E. Edwards (P83462) BAUCKHAM, THALL, SEEBER, HaasCaywood, PC KAUFMAN & KOCHES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 21 W. Chicago Street 470 W. Centre Ave., Ste. A Coldwater, MI 49036 Portage, MI 49024 (517) 278-4410 269-382-4500 mike@haasscaywood.com thall@michigantownshiplaw.com tiffany@haascaywood.com PROOF OF SERVICE Sandra L. Bosse states that on February 4, 2026, she served a copy of an Appearance, Answer to Petition with Affirmative Defenses and Proof of Service in this matter by first-class mail, postage fully prepaid, upon Petitioner’s Attorneys at the address as listed above. Le SF Sandra L. Bosse