26-000667.pdf

Arborvitae Building Co LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing Respondent · 26-000667-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

RECEIVED 

MAY 1 9 2026 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

’ 

ARBORVITAE BUILDING CO LLC 

Petitioner 

\'2 

MOAHR Docket 26-000667 

Parcel No. 33-01-01-27-126-041 

CITY OF LANSING, 

Respondent 

Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO 

City Assessor 

124 W. Michigan Avenue 

3rd Floor, City Hall 

Lansing, MI 48933 

(517) 483-4136 

Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION 

AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

RESPONDENT, the City of Lansing, through its Assessor, Jennifer Czeiszperger, hereby 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. 

4. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.

MTT Docket # 26-000667 

10. 

11 

12, 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 9. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the allegations 

in Paragraph 10. The mailing address on record is 2947 Eyde Parkway, East Lansing, MI 

48823. 

. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 for reason that 

they do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations, 

and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 12. 

The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board 

of Review are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

| Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

33-01-01-27-126-041 | $616,800 

$308,400 

$308,400 

Respondent contends that the 2025 values for the property identified above are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

33-01-01-27-126-041 | $616,800 

$308,400 

$308,400 

The 2025 values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

Parcel Number 

True Cash Value | Assessed Value 

| Taxable Value 

33-01-01-27-126-041 

$0 

$0 

$0 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies 

that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax 

year. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 for the reason that it is untrue. In further 

answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted

MTT Docket # 26-000667 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Lansing respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal 

dismiss the Petition; affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state 

equalization., and award Respondent its cost and attorney fees. 

Dated: 

= S [14 21, 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR 

CITY 

OF He 

By: 

EY) wal (osass Joes 

Jennifer Czeiszperger, MMAO 

[/ 

City Assessor, City of Lansing 

3d Floor, City Hall 

124 W Michigan Ave 

Lansing, Michigan 48933 

Telephone: (517) 483-4136 

Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov

MTT Docket # 26-000667 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the 

following affirmative defenses: 

A. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action 

against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s claim for relief. 

B. 

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the 

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 

C. 

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 

205.737(3) and Kem v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 

B. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, 

discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or 

its agents. 

C. 

Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property 

failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the 

Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. 

D. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true 

cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. 

E. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that 

the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also 

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s

MTT Docket # 26-000667 

G. 

Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method 

of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s 

taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. 

H. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

L 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional 

acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 

I. 

Respondent 

has 

properly 

and 

lawfully 

assessed 

Petitioner’s 

property 

and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

K. 

Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become 

known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner 

is entitled to any relief and 

respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal 

be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be 

granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. 

OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR 

CITY OF LANSING 

Dated: 

S 

14 zy 

By: 

| 

Jennifer Czeiszperger, 

City Assessor, City of Lansing 

3d Floor, City Hall 

124 

W Michigan Ave 

Lansing, Michigan 48933

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

ARBORVITAE BUILDING CO LLC 

; 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

< 

MTT Docket No. 26-000667 

CITY OF LANSING 

| 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jennifer Czeiszperger 

states that on 5/14/26 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Answer 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

MTT PO Box 30232, Lansing Ml 48909 

AND 

Samantha Eyde PLLC 

2947 Eyde Parkway Ste. 200 

East Lansing, Ml 48823 

ain id a 

[Signature of person/who is/serving/mailing copy] 

Jennifer Czeiszperger

City of Lansing - Assessors 

3rd Floor City Hall 

124 W. Michigan Ave. 

Lansing, Michigan 48933-1687 

Received 

i

← View full record