MTA 26 Response_Sams Battle Creek_FINAL.pdf
Sams Real Estate Business Trust, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek, Respondent · 25-002394-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 SAM’S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, Petitioner, v CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, Respondent. Docket No. 25-002394 _____________________________________________________________________________/ DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) JACKIE J. COOK (P68781) HONIGMAN LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 660 Woodward Avenue 2290 First National Building Detroit, MI 48226-3506 (313) 465-7622 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION TO CONTEST 2026 ASSESSED, STATE EQUALIZED AND TAXABLE VALUES Respondent, City of Battle Creek, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Motion to Amend as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 2, including subparagraphs (a)-(d), for the reason that the same 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
Page 2
2 principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 3. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Motion but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs. Respondent incorporates by reference the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to Petition herein. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Battle Creek, requests the Tribunal enter an Order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and dismissing the appeal . HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: June 17, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 3
3 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to: Daniel L. Stanley Honigman LLP dstanley@honigman.com Jackie J. Cook Honigman LLP jcook@honigman.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher____________ Dated: June 17, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher