MTA 26 Response_Sams Garfield_FINAL.pdf
Sam's Real Estate Business Trust, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Garfield, Respondent · 25-002390-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 Sam’s Real Estate Business Trust, Petitioner, v Garfield Township, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-002390 _____________________________________________________________________________/ DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) JACKIE J. COOK (P68781) HONIGMAN LLP Attorney for Petitioner 2290 First National Building 660 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226-3506 (313) 465-7270 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION TO CONTEST 2026 ASSESSED, STATE EQUALIZED, AND TAXABLE VALUES Respondent, Garfield Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Motion to Amend as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 2, including subparagraphs (a)-(d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon the correct application of proper
Page 2
2 principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 3. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Motion but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs. Respondent incorporates by reference the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to Petition herein. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Garfield Township, requests the Tribunal enter an Order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and dismissing the appeal. . HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: June 16, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 3
3 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to: Daniel L. Stanley Honigman LLP dstanley@honigman.com Jackie J. Cook Honigman LLP jcook@honigman.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Kelsea Melcher____________ Dated: June 16, 2026 Kelsea Melcher