answer to petition 8.25.26 NREG.pdf
Nreg US Holdings Ltd Petitioner Vs. Township Of Scio Respondent · 26-001259-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL NREG US HOLDINGS LTD. Petitioner, MTT Docket No:26-001259 v ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX CASE Scio Township, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________/ Hallahan & Associates PC Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@lahallahanlaw.com FINK & FINK, PLLC Attorneys for Respondent Mariah Evans Fink (P73757) 3025 Miller Rd Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Telephone (734) 994-1077 Mariah.fink@finkandfink.com _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, Scio Township, by its attorneys, FINK & FINK, PLLC, answers the Petition as follows: 1. Admit. 2. Admit. 3. Admit. 4. Admit. 5. Respondent lack information or knowledge of Petitioner’s principal office but takes Petitioner at its word. 6. Admit.
Page 2
2 7. Admit. 8. Admit. 9. Respondent acknowledges that this allegation contains Petitioner’s contention; however, Respondent denies that these values are accurate. 9. Admit that Petitioner’s calculations appear to be correct. 10. Admit. 11. Denied for the reason that this allegation and its subparts are not true as follows: a. Respondent’s assessment of the property complies with the statutes and constitutional limitations on assessments. b. Respondent’s assessment is not more than 50% of the true cash value and complies with the statutes and constitutional limitations on assessments. c. Respondent’s assessment is proper based on the standard practices for determining assessments in Michigan. d. Respondent’s assessment of Petitioner’s property does not discriminate against because it is not at a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment within the assessment district and the assessment was determined using the same standard practice for all properties in the assessment district. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that the Petition be denied, that the assessment be sustained, and the Respondent granted its attorney fees and costs of suit. FINK & FINK, PLLC Attorneys for Respondent BY: /s/ Mariah Evans Fink MARIAH EVANS FINK (P73757) Dated: August 25, 2026