Walker - Egypt Creek Properties - Respondent's Answer with Aff Defenses 9-29-26.pdf
Egypt Creek Properties LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Walker Respondent · 26-002758-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 EGYPT CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF WALKER, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-002758 Parcel Nos. 41-13-09-107-004 41-13-09-107-011 41-13-09-107-012 41-13-09-107-017 / Jon Aylsworth PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS, Representative for Petitioner 861 Pinecrest Ave SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 269-366-0300 jack@skylinepropertytax.com Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorneys for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9340 toby@bloomsluggett.com / RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Walker, through its attorneys, hereby submits this Answer to Petitioner’s Petition filed in this matter. (1) Admitted that Petitioner is Egypt Creek Properties, LLC; Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s principal office as Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegation. (2) Admitted. (3) Respondent admits that the subject parcels are classified as industrial and are presently used for industrial purposes. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation concerning the purpose for which the property was originally designed because Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of that allegation. (4) Admitted. (5) Respondent admits that Petitioner alleges claims related to the subject property’s taxable value and true cash value, but denies that the subject property is improperly assessed and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief.
Page 2
2 4911-6885-9348, v. 1 (6) Respondent admits the values alleged in Paragraph 6 accurately reflect the March Board of Review’s determination as to the 2026 assessed and taxable values for each of the subject parcels. (7) Respondent admits that Petitioner appealed to the March Board of Review, but denies that the Board of Review did not grant “the requested relief” because the Board of Review reduced the assessed and taxable values for the subject parcels. (8) This paragraph contains legal conclusions to which no response is required; Respondent otherwise denies the allegations as untrue. (9) Respondent denies the values alleged by Petitioner as untrue. Respondent admits that Petitioner contends the values in dispute based on the allegations in paragraph 9; however, Respondent denies as untrue that the subject property is improperly assessed and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. (10) Paragraph 10 contains a request for relief to which no response is required; Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief, requested or otherwise. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because the valuation methods used by Respondent comply with the Constitution, state law, and prevailing Michigan State Tax Commission procedures. 3. Respondent’s assessment reflects 50% of the subject property’s true cash value and the values on the roll, including the taxable value, comply with MCL 211.27a. 4. Petitioner may not be a party in interest capable of bringing appeals as to the parcels at issue in this matter. 5. Petitioner’s claims may be barred in whole or in part for failing to allege sufficient facts to invoke the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction. 6. Respondent reserves the right to identify further affirmative defenses as may become known through discovery. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s appeal with prejudice and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees, and such other and further relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted by,
Page 3
3 4911-6885-9348, v. 1 Dated: September 28, 2026 BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC /s/ Toby Koenig Toby Koenig (P72367) Attorneys for Respondent City of Walker PROOF OF SERVICE Tonya Voakes, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed by Bloom Sluggett, PC, and that on September 29, 2026, she served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance and Answer to Petition with Affirmative Defenses by first class mail and e-mail upon Jon Aylsworth at Jon Aylsworth Property Tax Consultants 861 Pinecrest Ave SE Grand Rapids, MI 49506 jack@skylinepropertytax.com /s/ Tonya Voakes Tonya Voakes