Full record / Onesky Answer to Severed Petition 25003930.pdf

Onesky Answer to Severed Petition 25003930.pdf

Onesky 8 & Lahser Properties, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003930-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.

Page 1

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

ONESKY & LAHSER PROPERTIES, LLC , 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-003930 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 22019029.016L 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO SEVERED ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION and 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Now Comes Respondent, City of Detroit, by and through it undersigned counsel and in Answer 

to the Severed Petition filed in this matter states the following: 

THE PARTIES 

1. Respondent, City of Detroit, neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits the allegations in the corresponding paragraph as 

true. 

 

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 

 

3. Respondent, City of Detroit, neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs.

Page 2

2 

 

4. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits as true the allegations contained in the 

corresponding paragraph. 

5. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits. 

 

THE 2025 ASSESSMENT 

 

6. Respondent, City of Detroit admits as true the corresponding allegation. 

 

7. Respondent, City of Detroit admits as true the corresponding allegations. 

8. Respondent, City of Detroit admits as true the allegations in the corresponding 

paragraph. 

9. Respondent, City of Detroit, lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of the allegation and therefore denies the allegation. 

10. Respondent, City of Detroit admits as true the corresponding allegation. 

11. Respondent, City of Detroit admits that this appeal involves issues of valuation . 

However, Respondent denies that any such allegations have merit. 

12. Respondent, City of Detroit admits only that Petitioner’s instant Tax Tribunal Appeal 

alleges issues involving valuation , taxable value, due process, equal protection, and 

uniformity. However, Respondent denies that any such allegations have merit. 

13. Respondent, City of Detroit neither admits nor denies as Respondent lacks sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs. 

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.

Page 3

3 

 

Dated: Thursday, February 19, 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 

 

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: 

February 19, 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 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On February 19, 2026, I mailed by first class mail a copy of Respondent’s Answer to: 

 

 

 

Jerome P. Pesnick 

 

 

 

WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER, & PLUNKETT PC 

 

 

 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

 

 

 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

 

 

 

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

belief. 

 

Dated: February 19, 2026 

 

 

 

 

 

 /s/Mary Beth Cobbs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Beth Cobbs ( P40080) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Detroit Law Department 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Woodward Ave., Ste. 500 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226

PDF reading copy

← View full record