Answer Aff Def & POS - 26-001441.pdf
Topvalco Inc Petitioner Vs. Township Of Brighton Respondent · 26-001441-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 TOPVALCO INC., Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001441 PARCEL NO. 4712-32-300-075 ______________________________________/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com cbeckner@dmainc.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No.: 4712-32-300-075 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. The property identified above is real . ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. Only one parcel of property is the subject of this appeal. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph.
Page 2
4. Petitioner owns and/or otherwise holds an interest in the parcel of property that is the subject of this appeal. ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in the above paragraph, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 5. The property identified above is classified as 201 Commercial-Improved . ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 6. The assessment(s) at issue were not protested to Respondent’s March, July, or December Board of Review as a protest was not required. ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 7. The property or properties at issue are in Livingston County. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 8. The property or properties’ address is: 9968 E Grand River Ave, Brighton, MI 48116. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 9. The assessment(s) at issue were established by the: Brighton Township . ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 10. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in the above paragraph, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 11. This appeal involves issues relating to the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values and uniformity. ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph, leaving Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
12. The tax year at issue is: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash and taxable values and the uniformity of the assessment for the 2026 tax year. 13. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s 2026 Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $10,146,400 $5,073,200 $4,585,411 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 14. Petitioner contends the values for tax year 2026 are no more than the following: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $5,036,400 $2,518,200 $2,518,200 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 15. The values in contention for tax year 2026 are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $5,110,000 $2,555,000 $2,067,211 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses.
Page 4
16. The 2026 assessments imposed on the subject property and the taxes to be levied and collected are invalid because: (a) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessment, including state equalized and/or taxable value, is at a higher percentage of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (c) The assessment is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) The assessment otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and subparagraphs (a) through (d) and requests that this Tribunal deny Petitioner’s requests. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent October 12, 2026 _________________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TOPVALCO INC., Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001441 PARCEL NO. 4712-32-300-075 ______________________________________/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com cbeckner@dmainc.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, by and through its attorneys, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner failed to state a claim for which its requested relief, or any other relief, may be granted. 2. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s conduct renders it estopped or otherwise barred from asserting the claims presented in the Petition. 3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, laches, and/or undue delay.
Page 6
2 4. Petitioner’s legal theories and requested relief are either not recognized as valid under Michigan law or have no application to the facts of this case. 5. Some or all of Petitioner’s claims and requests for relief are barred on jurisdictional or jurisprudential grounds as moot, not ripe, and/or not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and authority. 6. There is no issue of material fact, and Respondent is entitled to the dismissal of the Petition in its entirety and with prejudice. 7. Petitioner waived any right to assert the claims presented in the petition, or its claims are otherwise barred in whole or in part, by lack of standing, failure to be the real party in interest, agreement, consent, acquiescence, ratification, course of conduct or performance, promissory and/or other estoppel, misrepresentation, release, abandonment, or violation of law. 8. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent. 9. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to support its allegation that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% of the subject property’s true cash value or that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect. 10. Petitioner has asked this Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different that that utilized in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to Respondent’s remaining taxpayers.
Page 7
3 11. Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. 12. Petitioner’s characterization of the assessment(s) and taxes is contrary to law and refuted by documentary evidence. 13. Respondent reserves the right to amend and supplement these affirmative defenses as facts are learned through continuing investigation and discovery and as the Tribunal permits. Dated: October 12, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 8
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TOPVALCO INC., Petitioner, v TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001441 PARCEL NO. 4712-32-300-075 ______________________________________/ Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 msilvey@dmainc.com amorse@dmainc.com cbeckner@dmainc.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on October 12, 2026 she served a copy of Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey Alex Morse Cameron Beckner DuCharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld