Answer Eschaton 26-001261.pdf

Eschaton LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Wayne County Respondents · 26-001261-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

1 

 

 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ESCHATON LLC 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 001261 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 03003238 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

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, neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

2. Respondent admits as true that this petition is brought pursuant to MCL 211.53a 

and/or MCL 211.53b, but denies that these allegations have any merit. 

3. Respondent denies as untrue the allegations contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). 

4. Respondent admits as true that this petition seeks a review of Respondent’s keeping 

the subject property tax role but denies as untrue the remaining allegations in the 

corresponding paragraph. 

II. PARTIES 

5. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations.

2 

 

7. Respondent admits as true. 

8. Respondent, City of Detroit admits that the Wayne County Treasurer is the 

governmental entity responsible for collection, delinquency enforcement, and 

foreclosure proceedings and the Treasurer, City of Detroit is also responsible for 

collection of real property taxes. 

III- PROPERTY INFORMATION 

9. Respondent admits as true 

10. Respondent admits as true 

IV- TAX YEARS AT ISSUE 

11. Respondent admits as true that Petitioner is contesting in this petition the denial of a 

tax exemption for tax years 2019- 2024, but denies that this allegation has merit. 

12. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

13. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

14. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

15. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

16. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

17. Respondent admits as true. 

18. Respondent admits as true.

3 

 

19. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

20. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

21. Respondent admits that a judgment of foreclosure was entered against subject 

property, but denies that this arose from an improper assessment. 

22. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

23. Respondent denies as untrue. 

24. Respondent denies as untrue. 

25. Respondent denies as untrue. 

26. Respondent denies as untrue. 

27. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

28. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

29. Respondent denies as untrue. 

30. Respondent denies as untrue. 

31. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

VI -TIMELINESS 

32. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations.

4 

 

33. Respondent admits that MCL 211.53b provides for correction of clerical error and 

mutual mistake of fact. 

34. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these allegations. 

35. Respondent admits that a copy of the complaint for a quiet title action is attached as 

an exhibit in this Petition. 

36. Respondent admits as true. 

37. Respondent admits as true. 

VII- CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

COUNT I 

Improper Denial/Failure to Recognize Exemption 

(MCL 211.7) 

 

38. Respondent incorporates its responses to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-37, as if 

fully stated herein. 

39. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these 

allegations. 

40. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies these 

allegations. 

41. Respondent denies as untrue. 

42. Respondent denies as untrue. 

 

.

5 

 

COUNT II 

Clerical Error/Mutual Mistake of Fact 

(MCL 211.53a /MCL 211.53b) 

 

 

43. Respondent incorporates its responses to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-42, as if 

fully stated herein. 

44. Respondent denies as untrue the allegations contained in the 

45. Denied as untrue. 

 

VIII RELIEF REQUESTED 

Wherefore, Respondent prays that this Tribunal deny the relief requested in A-I . 

 

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 24, 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

6 

 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, City of Detroit, and asserts the following Affirmative 

Defenses to the Petitioner’s claims: 

1. 

Petitioner 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. 

5. 

Petitioner’s ownership and/or use of the subject property does not meet the threshold 

requirements for exemption from ad valorem real property taxation as established by applicable 

statutes and case law. 

Wherefore, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the 

Petition in this matter and award attorney fees and costs to Respondent. 

Dated: September 24, 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

7 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

ESCHATON, LLC 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 001261 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 03003238 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On September 24, 2026, I mailed by first class mail, a copy of Respondent’s Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to: 

 

 

 

Darwyn P. Fair 

Darwyn P. Fair Law PLLC 

535 Garfield, Suite 111-554 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I declare that the above statement is true to the best of my information, knowledge, and 

belief. 

 

Dated: September 24, 2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226

← View full record