St. Joseph - Whirlpool Tax - Appearance and Answer (2025) (8.15.25) final.pdf
Whirlpool Corporation, Petitioner Vs. City Of St Joseph, Respondent · 25-001963-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 MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001963 PPN: 76-0013-0034-16-9 / Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Derik Edwards Aaron Stout DUCHARME, MCMILLEN & ASSOC, INC. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260, ext. 2404 msilvey@dmainc.com dedwards@dmainc.com astout@dmainc.com Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9343 toby@bloomsluggett.com / APPEARANCE NOW COMES attorney Toby Koenig, of the law firm of Bloom Sluggett, PC and hereby enters his appearance on behalf of Respondent in this matter. Dated: August 15, 2025 Respectfully submitted, BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC /s/ Toby Koenig Toby Koenig (P72367) Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9340
Page 2
2 4906-8098-2367, v. 1 STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v CITY OF ST. JOSEPH, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001963 PPN: 76-0013-0034-16-9 / Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) Derik Edwards Aaron Stout DUCHARME, MCMILLEN & ASSOC, INC. Representatives for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260, ext. 2404 msilvey@dmainc.com dedwards@dmainc.com astout@dmainc.com Toby Koenig (P72367) BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC Attorney for Respondent 161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 400 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 965-9343 toby@bloomsluggett.com / RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES Respondent through its attorneys Bloom Sluggett, PC, and hereby submits its Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted.
Page 3
3 4906-8098-2367, v. 1 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations in paragraph 10 of Petitioner’s petition, and Respondent otherwise leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 11. This paragraph contains a restatement of Petitioner’s claim to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Respondent admits that Petitioner alleges issues relating to valuation, assessment, taxable value, and uniformity, but Respondent denies that the subject property is improperly assessed and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 12. Admitted. 13. Respondent denies the values alleged in Paragraph 13 of Petitioner’s Petition as the correct Roll Values are as follows: True Cash Value: $5,547,400; Assessed Value: $2,773,700; Taxable Value: $2,647,409. 14. Denied as untrue. 15. Denied as untrue as the values alleged are based on incorrect calculations involving the Roll Values for the subject property. 16. Denied as untrue. 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 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 the General Property Tax Act. 4. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support standing to bring this appeal or that it is a proper party-in-interest. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support its allegation that the taxable value of the subject property is improper. 6. Respondent reserves the right to identify further affirmative defenses as may become known through discovery.
Page 4
4 4906-8098-2367, v. 1 WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s petition with prejudice and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees, and all such further and additional relief as this Tribunal may deem appropriate. Dated: August 15, 2025 Respectfully submitted, BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC /s/ Toby Koenig Toby Koenig (P72367) Attorney for Respondent PROOF OF SERVICE Tonya Voakes, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed by Bloom Sluggett, PC, and that on August 15, 2025, she served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance and Respondent’s Answer to Petition with Affirmative Defenses by First Class and electronic mail upon: Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey Derik Edwards Aaron Stout DUCHARME, MCMILLEN & ASSOC, INC. 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 msilvey@dmainc.com dedwards@dmainc.com astout@dmainc.com /s/ Tonya Voakes Tonya Voakes