Answer Gratiot Investment LLC.pdf
Gratiot Investment, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit Respondent · 26-001031-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GRATIOT INVESTMENT LLC Petitioner, v CITY OF DETROIT, Docket No. 26- 001031 Respondent Parcel No. 21028711-4 ____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Now Comes Respondent, City of Detroit, by and through it undersigned counsel and in Answer to the Petition filed in this matter states the following: 1. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits as true. 2. Respondent neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks specific knowledge, and therefore and therefore denies these allegations. 3. Respondent admits as true. 4. Respondent admits as true. 5. Respondent admits as true. 6. Respondent admits as true that this appeal involves issues of the property’s true cash and taxable values, but denies that these values as set by the Respondent are violative of the Michigan Constitution or the statues of the State of Michigan. 7. Respondent admits as true.
Page 2
2 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks specific knowledge, and therefore and therefore denies these allegations. 9. Respondent admits as true as to the values established by Respondent’s Board of Review. 10. Respondent neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks specific knowledge, and therefore and therefore denies these allegations. 11. Respondent admits. 12. Respondent requests that this Honorable Tribunal deny Petitioner’s request for relief. 13. Respondent denies as untrue. CONCLUSION and REQUEST FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. Dated: September 16, 2026 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs By: Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) Kevin C. Richard ( P 43417) Attorneys for Respondent City of Detroit Law Department 2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 Detroit, MI 48226
Page 3
3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES Respondent, City of Detroit, and asserts the following Affirmative Defenses to the Petitioner’s claims: 1. Petitioner’s lacks standing and/or capacity to bring forth this Petition. 2. Petitioner’s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 3. This Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. Dated: September 16, 2026 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs By: Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) Kevin C. Richard ( P 43417) Attorneys for Respondent City of Detroit Law Department 2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 Detroit, MI 48226 313.237.3075 cobbm@detroitmi.gov
Page 4
4 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GRATIOT INVESTMENT, LLC Petitioner, v CITY OF DETROIT, Docket No. 26- 001031 Respondent Parcel No. 21028711-4 ____________________________________________________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE On September 16, 2026, I mailed by first class mail, a copy of Respondent’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to: Law Office of Peter Ellenson, P.C. Peter Ellenson 30500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 500 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 I declare that the above statement is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. Dated: September 16, 2026 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) City of Detroit Law Department 2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 Detroit, MI 48226