Answer to Petition_Distro 10_FINAL.pdf
Distro 10 Inc. Petitioner Vs. City Of Warren Respondent · 26-000622-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 DISTRO 10, INC., Petitioner, v CITY OF WARREN, Respondent. Docket No. 26-000622 Parcel No. 12-99-02-217-200 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ALAN SHAMOUN (P76992) JAMILA J. GARMO (P85952) Attorneys for Petitioners 21445 Hoover Road, Suite 101 Warren, MI 48089 (248) 808-5222 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, City of Warren, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: Subject Personal Property 1. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
2 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 as to property type and address but lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to property type, location, and parcel number. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 4. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4. 5. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent denies that the subject property was used for industrial processing during the year in dispute. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9. General Allegations 10. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 11. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
3 12. Respondent admits the subject parcel encompasses certain equipment but lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the remaining specific allegations set forth and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 for the reasons stated in the preceding and proceeding paragraphs. 2026 Assessment Protest to the Board of Review and Jurisdiction 14. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 as Petitioner’s filings and the General Property Tax Act speak for themselves. 15. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 15. 16. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 as Petitioner’s filings speak for themselves. 17. Respondent admits that Petitioner filed a protest with the 2026 March Board of Review (hereinafter Board) but neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations set forth as Petitioner’s filings speak for themselves. Respondent denies any implication that the subject personal property is used in industrial processing as well as any implication that Petitioner or the subject personal property is entitled to exemption. 18. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 18. 19. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 as Petitioner’s Petition speaks for itself. 20. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s identification of the subject personal property’s classification as being at issue but denies that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s classification claims.
Page 4
4 21. Respondent denies that that Tribunal has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s classification claims. Respondent neither admits nor denies the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the remainder of Petitioner’s claims as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself and jurisdiction is a matter that only the Tribunal can determine. Count I – The subject property does not qualify for the Eligible Manufacturing Personal Property Exemption under MCL 211.9m or MCL 211.9n 22. Respondent incorporates by reference and restates its responses made above and below herein. 23. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 23 but denies said issues have merit and further denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 24. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner but denies said issues have merit, denies that the subject personal property is entitled to exemption, and denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 25. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 26. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies any implication that the subject property is used in industrial processing as said term is used in MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n. 27. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 for the reason the same are untrue. The subject property does not qualify for exemption under MCL 211.9m and/or MCL 211.9n. 28. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons stated above.
Page 5
5 WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Warren, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan___________________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: May 13, 2026 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Warren, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 2. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 3. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 4. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent or its agents. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.
Page 6
6 6. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 7. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 8. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 9. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 10. Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings.
Page 7
7 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan____________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: May 13, 2026 (248) 731-3089 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Alan Shamoun alan@mgmt10.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher_______________ Dated: May 13, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher