26-001043.pdf
Avaneesh LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Farmington Hills Respondent · 26-001043-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
RECEIVED AUG 31 2099 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AF FATRSHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL AVANEESH LLC Petitioner v MOAHR Docket 26-001043 Parcel No. 22-23-15-101-038 CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS, Respondent Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Farmington Hills, MI 48336 (248) 871-2479 jhendrix@fhgov.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RESPONDENT, the City of Farmington Hills, through its Assessor, Jennifer Hendrix, hereby responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. As to Paragraph 1, Respondent admits the allegations. 2. Asto Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations 3. As to Paragraph 3, Respondent admits the allegations. 4. Asto Paragraph 4, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. The owner of record is Avaneesh
Page 2
MTT Docket # 26-001043 10. 11. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. As to Paragraph 8, Respondent admits the allegations. As to Paragraph 9, Respondent admits the allegations. As to Paragraph 10, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. The mailing address of record is 4826 Tazer Dr, Lafayette, IN 47905. As to Paragraph 11, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 12. As to Paragraph 13, Respondent admits the allegations. The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value Taxable Value 22-23-15-101-038 $7,164,240 $3,582,100 $3,582,120 As to paragraph 14, Respondent denies that Petitioner’s values for the subject property are accurate or true. As to Paragraph 15, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. As to Paragraph 16, and including subparagraphs (a) through (d), Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations for the reason that they are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional. Further, the subject property did not have any
Page 3
MTT Docket # 26-001043 WHEREFORE, Respondent CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition; affirm Respondents assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. OERICE. OF THE CITY ASSESSOR Rplz By: Dated: 8 f > [ Je fer "Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor, Farmington Hills 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Farmington Hills, MI 48336 (248) 871-2479 jhendrix@fhgov.com
Page 4
MTT Docket # 26-001043 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS will rely on the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s 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 fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or its agents. 5. Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. 6. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. 7. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect.
Page 5
MTT Docket # 26-001043 9; Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. 14. Respondent objects to the extent Petitioner lacks standing to bring this Petition. WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR ; : CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS Dated: ¥ Zh Ad slo lo ow Loy Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor, Farmington Hills
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN
GRETCHEN WHITMER
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MARLON I. BROWN, DPA
GOVERNOR
LANSING
DIRECTOR
Avaneesh LLC
,
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
Petitioner(s)
v
MTT Docket No. 26-001043
City of Farmington Hills
Respondent(s)
PROOF OF SERVICE
Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO
states
that on
b 7 / ya 0%
he/she
[Name of person serving/mailing petition]
[date of sefvice]
served a copy of the Answer
relative to the above-captioned matter upon:
[Provide name and address of the party/people being served]
MTT P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, Mi 48909
AND
Michelle M Silvey
9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375
Indianapolis, IN 46240
{
ET of ry
a who is serving/mailing copy]
Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO
[Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]Page 7
City of Farmington Hills METROPLEX FARMINGTON Cv $ HILLS Finance Department Ex 45 oy amr Assessing Division 27 AUG 2046 a ag a ae eel IT" Vicogor 31555 West Eleven Mile Road 2 7 £37 ae 336 $0701 Fo Farmington Hills, MI 48336 x Fit = A y 0008042865 AUG 27 2026 Se Le gy h Posog,, ho. BOX 30232 LANSING, M1 48909 uns EE rT INE EL ERR