Answer Affirm Defense & POS Indy Twp 26000812 2026.07.17.pdf
Sroa 4550 White Lake Mi LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Independence Respondent · 26-000812-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 SROA 4550 WHITE LAKE MI, LLC Petitioner, MTT Docket No.: 26-000812 Parcel Nos. J-08-31-376-026 and J-08-31-302-010 v. INDEPENDENCE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. _____________________________________________________________________________ Sarah R. Belloli Zachary Learman (P71005) Ryan, LLC for Petitioner Daniel J. Kelly (P41315) 101 West Big Beaver, Ste. 945 THE KELLY FIRM, PLC Troy, MI 48084 Attorneys for Respondent (313) 230-0104 512 E. 11 Mile Rd Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 655-7025 zack@kellyfirmpc.com dan@kellyfirmpc.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND PROOF OF SERVICE NOW COMES the Respondent, INDEPENDENCE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by its attorneys, THE KELLY FIRM, PLC, and for its answer to the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states as follows: 1. In response to paragraph 1, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 2. In response to paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 3. In response to paragraph 3, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
4. In response to paragraph 4, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 5. In response to paragraph 5, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 6. In response to paragraph 6, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 7. In response to paragraph 7, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 8. In response to paragraph 8, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 9. In response to paragraph 9, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 10. In response to paragraph 10, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 11. In response to paragraph 11, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 12. In response to paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 13. In response to paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 14. In response to paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 15. In response to paragraph 15, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
16. In response to paragraph 16, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 17. In response to paragraph 17, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 18. In response to paragraph 18, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 19. In response to paragraph 19, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 20. In response to paragraph 20, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES the Respondent, INDPENDENCE CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by its attorneys, THE KELLY FIRM, PLC, and files the following Affirmative Defenses in support of its Answer to the Petition: 1. The facts as alleged by the Petitioner do not establish mutual mistake of fact. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts upon which the mode and method of appraising property fails to conform with mode and method applied to all other properties in the community. 3. Petitioner has failed to show that any fact other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of the property.
Page 4
4. Petitioner’s claim, if prevailed upon, would create a windfall for Petitioner and create a burden upon the Township, schools, County taxes, and other property owners in the community. 5. Petitioner is asking this Honorable Tribunal to make an underassessment based upon an arbitrary basis. 6. A levy of all taxes is required to be made based upon the assessment of fifty percent (50%) of true cash value as ultimately determined by the process of County and State equalization. 7. Respondent reserves the right to file additional Affirmative Defenses as may become apparent in this case. THE KELLY FIRM, PLC Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 17, 2026 /s/ Zachary Learman Zachary Learman (P71005) Attorney for Respondent 512 E. Eleven Mile Rd Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 (248) 655-7025 zack@kellyfirmpc.com PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned states that on July 17, 2026, she electronically filed Respondent's Appearance, Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service with the Michigan Tax Tribunal via the Tribunal's E-filing System and served a copy upon Representative for Petitioner via electronic mail to Petitioner’s address at Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com. /s/ Julian Slavsky Julian Slavsky