Appearance and Answer to Petition.pdf

Franklin North Monroe, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Grand Rapids, Respondent · 25-001631-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 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

 

 

FRANKLIN NORTH MONROE, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001631 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 41-13-13-477-016 

 

 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

/ 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorney for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Elizabeth J. Fossel (P41430) 

Kendall R. O’Connor (P84036) 

Grand Rapids Department of Law 

Attorneys for Respondent 

300 Monroe Avenue NW, Suite 620 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

(616) 456-4029 

efossel@grand-rapids.mi.us 

koconnor@grand-rapids.mi.us 

 

/ 

 

RESPONDENT’S APPEARANCE AND ANSWER TO PETITION 

WITH PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

NOW COMES Elizabeth J. Fossel and Kendall R. O’Connor for the City of Grand Rapids, 

who hereby enters their Appearance of Counsel on behalf of Respondent City of Grand Rapids, and 

answers Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. Petitioner’s principal office address is 1900 Spring Rd., Suite 420, Oak Brook, IL 60523. 

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 41-13-

13-477-016 (“Petitioner’s Property”), with an address of 1340 NW Monroe Ave., Grand 

Rapids, located in Kent County, Michigan. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits upon information and belief that Petitioner is a party 

in interest with respect to Petitioner’s Property. Respondent lacks knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations, and leaves Petitioner 

to its proofs.

2 

 

 

2. Respondent, City of Grand Rapids, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner’s 

Property. 

 

ANSWER: Admitted. 

 

3. In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner’s Property to be $2,170,967 

and assessed Petitioner’s Property at $4,700,700 which will result in a state equalized value 

in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations and corresponding values as set forth 

in paragraph 3. 

 

4. Petitioner’s Property is classified as commercial improved. Petitioner’s Property is 

presently used or available for use for commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that 

Petitioner’s Property was originally designed to be used for commercial purposes. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the property is classified as Commercial-Improved. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 4 of 

Petitioner’s Petition for the reason that Respondent lacks knowledge or sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding use or intended use 

of the property, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

5. This matter involved issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value, and 

(d) uniformity. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of 

Petitioner’s Petition for the reason that Respondent lacks knowledge or sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. 

 

6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative 

to the value of a loss. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of 

Petitioner’s Petition for the reason that Respondent lacks knowledge or sufficient 

information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations. 

 

7. No board of review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property.

3 

 

ANSWER: Paragraph 7 contains a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 

To the extent a response is required, Respondent denies that protest was made before the 

Board of Review in 2025. 

 

8. The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and table value, imposed on 

Petitioner’s Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and 

unlawful for the reasons that: 

(a) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the 

amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, is at higher 

percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution 

and applicable statutes; 

(c) The assessment including taxable value and/or state equalized value, is based upon 

an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s 

Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and is based upon the application of 

wrong principles; and, 

(d) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode 

of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection, and due process 

of law. 

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 8 as untrue. 

(a) Paragraph 8(a) of Petitioner’s Petition contains a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegation as untrue. 

(b) Paragraph 8(b) of Petitioner’s Petition contains a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegation as untrue. 

(c) Paragraph 8(c) of Petitioner’s Petition contains a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegation as untrue. 

(d) Paragraph 8(d) of Petitioner’s Petition contains a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, 

Respondent denies the allegation as untrue. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Grand Rapids prays that this Honorable Tribunal 

dismiss the Petition and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.

4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, 

a Michigan municipal corporation 

 

 

Dated: June 26, 2025 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Kendall R. O’Connor 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Kendall R. O’Connor (P84036) 

 Assistant City Attorney 

 Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

Alma Echeverria, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Legal Secretary in 

the Office of the City Attorney, attorneys for Respondent herein, and that on June 26, 2025, she 

served true and complete copies of Respondent’s Appearance and Answer to Petition via first 

class mail and email, upon: 

 

Stewart Mandell 

Honigman LLP 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

dstandley@honigman.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Alma Echeverria 

 

 

 Alma Echeverria

← View full record