Answer to Petition, AD & POS 25-003200.pdf
Berishaj Investments LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Shelby, Respondent · 25-003200-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
KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL BERISHAJ INVESTMENTS LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003200 vs. Parcel No. 23-07-24-427-009 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, Respondent. _____________________________________________________________________________/ HONIGMAN LLP JACKIE J. COOK (P68781) Attorneys for Petitioner 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (248) 566-8474 jcook@honigman.com KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC ROSEMARY V. DAVIS (P47336) ROBERT S. HUTH, JR. (P42531) Attorneys for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 Clinton Township, MI 48038 (586) 412-4900 rdavis@kirkhuthlaw.com _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION NOW COMES the Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, by and through its attorneys, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC, and for its Answer to Petition, states as follows: 1. Answering Paragraph 1, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 2. Answering Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 3. Answering Paragraph 3, Respondent states that the paragraph is not applicable. 4. Answering Paragraph 4, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 5. Answering Paragraph 5, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 6. Answering Paragraph 6, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein.
Page 2
2 S:\S\Shelby\Tax Tribunals\Berishaj Invs. 25-003200\Answer to Petition, AD & POS.doc KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . 7. Answering Paragraph 7, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. 8. Answering Paragraph 8, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 9. Answering Paragraph 9, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 10. Answering Paragraph 10, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 11. Answering Paragraph 11, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 12. Answering Paragraph 12, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 13. Answering Paragraph 13, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 14. Answering Paragraph 14, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 15. Answering Paragraph 15, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 16. Answering Paragraph 16, Respondent requests that the Tribunal deny the relief requested and uphold the assessment issued. 17. Answering Paragraph 17, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein.
Page 3
3 S:\S\Shelby\Tax Tribunals\Berishaj Invs. 25-003200\Answer to Petition, AD & POS.doc KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . Count I – The subject property qualifies for the Qualified Agricultural Exemption under MCL 211.733 18. Answering Paragraph 18, Respondent incorporates by reference the responses to all preceding paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 19. Answering Paragraph 19, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 20. Answering Paragraph 20, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 21. Answering Paragraph 21, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 22. Answering Paragraph 22, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 23. Answering Paragraph 23, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 24. Answering Paragraph 24, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 25. Answering Paragraph 25, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs. 26. Answering Paragraph 26, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its
Page 4
4 S:\S\Shelby\Tax Tribunals\Berishaj Invs. 25-003200\Answer to Petition, AD & POS.doc KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . strict proofs. The Township was denied a walk-through of the property and therefore was unable to verify the use of the property. 27. Answering Paragraph 27, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 28. Answering Paragraph 28, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 29. Answering Paragraph 29, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 30. Answering Paragraph 30, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 31. Answering Paragraph 31, Respondent states no response is necessary as the statute speaks for itself. 32. Answering Paragraph 32, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss Petitioners’ Petition and grant any further relief that this Tribunal deems appropriate and just. Count II – Denying Petitioner’s QAE application under MCL 211.7ee for the subject property is unconstitutional 33. Answering Paragraph 33, Respondent incorporates by reference the responses to all preceding paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 34. Answering Paragraph 34, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth therein and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs.
Page 5
5 S:\S\Shelby\Tax Tribunals\Berishaj Invs. 25-003200\Answer to Petition, AD & POS.doc KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . 35. Answering Paragraph 35, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. 36. Answering Paragraph 36, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. 37. Answering Paragraph 37, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. 38. Answering Paragraph 38, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. 39. Answering Paragraph 39, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason they are untrue. Respondent reserves the right to amend this Answer to include any additional defenses or information that may become known to Respondent during the course of this proceeding. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss Petitioners’ Petition and grant any further relief that this Tribunal deems appropriate and just. Respectfully Submitted, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC /s/Rosemary V. Davis ROSEMARY V. DAVIS (P47336) Attorneys for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Ste. 100 Clinton Township, MI 48038 (586) 412-4900 Dated: September 16, 2025
Page 6
6 S:\S\Shelby\Tax Tribunals\Berishaj Invs. 25-003200\Answer to Petition, AD & POS.doc KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, through its attorneys, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC, files the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts upon which the mode and method of appraising property fail to conform with mode and method applied to all other properties in the community. 2. Petitioner has failed to show that any fact other than 50 percent was applied to the true cash value of the property. 3. Petitioner is asking this Honorable Tribunal to make an underassessment based upon an arbitrary basis. 4. A levy of all taxes are required to be made based upon the assessment of 50 percent of true cash value as ultimately determined by the process of county and state equalization. 5. Respondent reserves the right to file additional affirmative defenses as may become apparent in this case. Respectfully Submitted, KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC /s/Rosemary V. Davis ROSEMARY V. DAVIS (P47336) Attorneys for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Ste. 100 Clinton Township, MI 48038 (586) 412-4900 Dated: September 16, 2025
Page 7
7 S:\S\Shelby\Tax Tribunals\Berishaj Invs. 25-003200\Answer to Petition, AD & POS.doc KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL BERISHAJ INVESTMENTS LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-003200 vs. Parcel No. 23-07-24-427-009 CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY, Respondent. / PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on September 16, 2025, she served a copy of: Respondent’s Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses and Proof of Service upon: Jackie J. Cook, Esq. Honigman, LLP 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 via First Class Mail, with postage prepaid thereon. I declare that the above information is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. s/Carol Wilson______________ Carol Wilson