City of Saginaw Answer and Affirmative Defenses.pdf
Magnum Equities, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Saginaw, Respondent · 25-001727-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MAGNUM EQUITIES, Petitioner, MTT DOCKET NO: 25-001727 V. CITY OF SAGINAW, a Michigan municipal corporation Respondent. Foley & Lardner LLP City of Saginaw By: Jason Conti (P55617) By: Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney Attorney for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 1315 S. Washington Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Saginaw, Michigan 48601 (313) 234-7177 (989) 759-1404 jconti@foley.com alusk@saginaw-mi.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, answers Petitioner’s Petition and says as follows: 1. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 1, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 2, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 3. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Petitioner determined the taxable and assessed values of the Subject Property to be significantly less than portrayed by Petitioner and are as follows: Parcel No. Assessed Value Taxable Value 21-4453-00000 $255,000 $218,923 21-2612-00200 $19,300 $19,300
Page 2
4. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Respondent NEITHER ADMITS NOR DENIES and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Respondent DENIES in the manner and for stated and for the reason same are untrue. Respondent asserts there is no actionable dispute at issue. 7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Neither Petitioner, nor the prior owner of the Subject Property, timely filed an appeal of the tax assessment with the local Board of Review. Petitioner did not even acquire ownership of the Subject Property until June 18, 2025, and lacks standing to bring this action. 8. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. a. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8a, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. b. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8b, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. c. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8c, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. d. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8d, Respondent DENIES in the manner and form stated and for the reason same are untrue. Wherefore, Respondent requests that the Tax Tribunal deny Petitioner’s request for relief. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 3, 2025 By: /s/ Amy L. Lusk Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney City of Saginaw Attorney for Respondent 1315 S. Washington Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48601
Page 3
RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Saginaw, by and through its attorney, Amy L. Lusk, hereby asserts the following as Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. 2. Petitioner failed to state a claim against Respondent upon which relief could be granted. 3. The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 4. The Tribunal lacks personal jurisdiction over the parties. 5. Petitioner has failed to file this case in the proper venue. 6. Petitioner has failed to mitigate its alleged damages. 7. Respondent was not properly served. 8. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by waiver, estoppel, laches, and/or unclean hands. 9. Respondent is entitled to governmental immunity. 10. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. 11. Petitioner’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because they are moot. 12. Petitioner lacks standing to appeal the tax assessment. 13. Respondent reserves the right to alter, amend, add, modify, or delete any or all of its affirmative defenses in this matter. Wherefore, Respondent requests that the Tax Tribunal deny Petitioner’s request for relief. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September 3, 2025 By: /s/ Amy L. Lusk Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney City of Saginaw Attorney for Respondent 1315 S. Washington Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48601
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MAGNUM EQUITIES, Petitioner, MTT DOCKET NO: 25-001727 V. CITY OF SAGINAW, a Michigan municipal corporation Respondent. Foley & Lardner LLP City of Saginaw By: Jason Conti (P55617) By: Amy L. Lusk (P63702), City Attorney Attorney for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700 1315 S. Washington Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Saginaw, Michigan 48601 (313) 234-7177 (989) 759-1404 jconti@foley.com alusk@saginaw-mi.com PROOF OF SERVICE I, Amy L. Lusk, state that on September 3, 2025, I served a copy of Respondent’s Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and Proof of Service in the above cause via e- filing upon the following: Michigan Tax Tribunal Attorney Jason Conti Dated: September 3, 2025 By: /s/ Amy L. Lusk Amy L. Lusk