Answer to Petition.pdf
Kre- Jup-Mi LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek Respondent · 26-001544-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL KRE-JUP-MI LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001544 v. Parcel No. 0086-00-940-0 City of Battle Creek, Respondent. FRIEDMAN REAL ESTATE John-Paul Wolfe Attorney for Petitioner 34975 W. Twelve Mile Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 848-4154 taxappeals@freg.com CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) Attorney for Respondent 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014 (269) 966-3385 cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov ANSWER TO PETITION and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER NOW COMES RESPONDENT, City of Battle Creek, by and through its attorneys, and in answer to Petitioners’ Petition responds as follows: 1. Property Parcel No: 0086-00-940-0 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 1 of its Petition. 2. The property identified above is __X_real ___personal. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 2 of its Petition. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-contiguous parcel.) ANSWER: N/A.
Page 2
2 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? ___Yes___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) ANSWER: N/A. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A. 6. The property identified above is classified as commercial-improved. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 6 of its Petition. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s __March __July __December Board of Review. ANSWER: N/A. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A. 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page of necessary): ANSWER: N/A
Page 3
3 10. The property or properties at issue are located in Calhoun County. The property or properties’ address is: ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 10 of its Petition. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local government unit): City of Battle Creek. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 11 of its Petition. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 12 of its Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): __X__ the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values ______ the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an additional or loss __Yes __No ___X__uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment ______ the property or properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL _______ ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 13 of its Petition. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 14 of its Petition. 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): 2845 SW Capital Ave, Battle Creek, MI 49015 Friedman Real Estate Management Company 34975 W Twelve Mile Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331
Page 4
4 ANSWER: N/A. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $3,611,200 $1,805,600 $1,675,447 ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 16 of its Petition. 17. Petitioner contends that the value for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $2,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 17 of its Petition as they undervalue the subject property. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $1,111,200 $555,600 $425,447 ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 18 of its Petition. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: No answer is required to the request for relief in Paragraph 19. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach addition page if necessary): ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 20 of its Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Petitioner requests that the Tax Tribunal enter an Order reducing the assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value of Petitioner’s Property to the figures set forth in Section 17 of this Petition and requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner any refunds attributable to such reductions, plus interest and costs. 2845 Capital was 82.75% occupied as of 12/31/25 with no major leasing prospects and a 2026 budget NOI of $243K. Tenants are medical users with gross lease structures, so they do not reimburse their share of operating expenses.
Page 5
5 WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: (a) Deny Petitioner’s requests; (b) Uphold or increase the values assessed by Respondent; and (c) Order such other and further relief as this Honorable Tribunal deems just and/or equitable. Dated: September 8, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III C. Marcel Stoetzel, III Deputy City Attorney City of Battle Creek 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014
Page 6
6 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent City of Battle Creek asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 2. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3. Petitioner lacks standing. 4. There are no genuine issues of material fact and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 5. Petitioner’s claims must fail due to the fact that they are devoid of arguable legal merit. 6. Petitioner’s claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitation. 7. Respondent reserves the right to amend or supplement these Affirmative Defenses as facts are learned through the discovery process or otherwise. Dated: September 8, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III C. Marcel Stoetzel, III Deputy City Attorney City of Battle Creek 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014