Answer Urban Dev Corp 26-001232.pdf

Urban Development Corporation Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit Respondent · 26-001232-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 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-001232 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 13009300-5 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

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, City of Detroit, neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

3. Respondent admits as true. 

4. Respondent, City of Detroit, neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs. 

5. Respondent admits. 

6. Respondent admits as true. 

7. Respondent admits as true. 

8. Respondent admits as true.

2 

 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

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 

 

COUNT I – PETITIONER QUALIFIES FOR PROPERTY TAX 

EXEMPTION UNDER MCL 211.7o 

 

19. Respondent restates and incorporates its responses to paragraphs 1-18 as if fully 

stated herein. 

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 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. 

22. Respondent denies these allegations as untrue. 

23. Respondent states that this is a proper recitation of MCL 211.7o(1) 

24. Respondent states that this is a proper recitation of Michigan Department of Treasury 

Bulletin 26 of 2017. 

25. Respondent admits as true that a copy of the Quit Claim Deed dated July 20,2006 is 

attached as Exhibit 1 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs that it currently occupied 

solely by the Taxpayer. 

26. 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. 

27. Respondent admits as true that a copy of Exhibit 2 is attached to the Petition, but leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs regarding the storage of landscaping equipment and materials. 

28. Respondent admits that caselaw does permit storage of items in an otherwise vacant 

property as meeting one prong of the 3 prong requirement for exemption, but leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs that it is entitled to an exemption.

4 

 

29. 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. 

30. Respondent admits that the Michigan Tax Tribunal ruling in Welcome Missionary led 

to a ruling that the property was tax exempt and the decision was upheld by the 

Michigan Court of Appeals. Petitioner is held to its proofs for the remaining 

allegations in the corresponding paragraph. 

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. 

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. 

33. 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 all 

34. Respondent admits as true that this is included in the Petitioner’s Articles of 

Incorporation ( Exhibit 3) 

35. Respondent admits as true. 

36. 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. 

37. 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. 

38. 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. 

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.

5 

 

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 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. 

42. 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. 

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 28, 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 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.

6 

 

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 28, 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 

 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26- 001232 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 13009300-5 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

On September 28, 2026, I mailed by first class mail a copy of Respondent’s Answer and 

Affirmative Defenses to: 

 

 

 

 

 

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and 

 

 

 

 

 

Stone, P.L.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

Gregory A. Nowak, Esq. 

 

 

 

 

 

150 West Jefferson , Suite 2500 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48226 

 

 

 

 

 

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

belief. 

 

Dated: September 28, 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