MTT 1186.pdf
Bh Market LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Benton Harbor Respondent · 26-001186-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 GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR BH Market LLC , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 26-001186 City of Benton Harbor Respondent. ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX ANSWER 1. X_Admit __ Deny. If denied, state the parcel number for the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition for the tax year or years at issue: (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Answer Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 2. X__Admit Deny. If denied, the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition is x real ___ personal. 3. NA Admit ___ Deny. If denied, identify the contiguous and non-contiguous parcels by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 4. X__Admit __ Deny. If denied, identify the parcel or parcels of personal property that are not located on a parcel of real property under appeal by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 5. NA Admit ___ Deny. a. If denied, state when the personal property statements were filed, if at all: b. On what date did the March Board of Review commence: 6. X__Admit ___ Deny. If denied, state the classification of the property identified on the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition for the tax year or years at issue: MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL - 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 - 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 - Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906
Page 2
MTT Docket No. Page 2 of 4 Is X__Admit ___ Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): 8. X__ Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional age if necessary): 9. Admit Deny X_ Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, state the facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): 10. X_Admit ___Deny. If denied, in what County are the property or properties located in and what is the address of the property or properties: 11. X__Admit ___Deny. If denied, what is the applicable local governmental unit: 12. Admit Deny X__Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): 13. If the property’s taxable value is at issue, was there an addition or loss for purposes of establishing the property's taxable value for the tax year or years at issue? X__ Yes __ No.
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 26-001186 Page 3 of 4 14. X Admit Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional age if necessary): 15. Admit Deny X Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): (N/A) 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 1,764,800 882,400 882,400 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 1,764,800 882,400 882,400 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 1,214,800 607,400 607,400
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 26-001186 Page 4 of 4 19. Admit X Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): Respondent denies that the fair market value of the property is $550,000 and asserts that the fair market value is $1,764,800 based on current property values. 20. Admit X_ Deny Neither Admit Nor Deny. If denied, list the separate facts upon which Respondent relies in support of the denial (attach additional page if necessary): Respondent denies that the fair market value of the property is $550,000 and asserts that the fair market value is $1,764,800 based on current property values. 21. List any separate and specific facts upon which Respondent relies to support every ground on which Respondent relies and also has the burden of proof (attach additional page if necessary): 22. List affirmative defenses and the separate and specific facts upon which Respondent relies in support of those affirmative defenses (attach additional page if necessary): Signature of Respondent's’ Authorized Representative or, if none, Respondent: Printed Name of Respondent's Authorized Representative or, if none, Respondent: Sara A. Senica, Attorney for City of Benton Harbor Email Address: sara,sblaw@gmail.com Mailing Address: 42-Longmeadow Village Drive Niles, MI49120 Telephone Number: 269-684-1500 Date: §-5-2 le
Page 5
22. 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
method 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 its allegation that the taxable value
of the subject property is improper.
5. Respondent City asserts and does not waive the affirmative defenses set forth in
MCR 2.111(F)(3) to the extent that said defenses are established by the facts of this
case.
6. Respondent City expressly reserves the right to plead and assert further and
other affirmative defenses as supported by the facts of the case.
August 5, 2026
Respegifully wis
{ A
Sara A. Senica, Attorney for Respondent