25-001962.pdf
American House Petoskey LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Bear Creek, Respondent · 25-001962-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
RECEIVED JUL 222025 JOEL D. WURSTER, PLC UNAL ATTORNEY MICHIGAN TAX TRIE WRIGHT CYCLE CO. BUILDING FACSIMILE (231) 347-4989 214 1/2 PARK AVENUE « P.O. BOX 2450 TELEPHONE (231) 347-4988 PETOSKEY, MICHIGAN 49770 July 16, 2025 Clerk Michigan Tax Tribunal P.O. Box 30232 Lansing, MI 48909 Re: American House Petoskey LLC v Bear Creek Township MTT Docket No. 25-001962 Dear Tribunal Clerk: Enclosed for filing are Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses and a Proof of Mailing. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Sincerely, Joel D. Wurster enc. c: Sarah Belloli (each w/enc.) Dennis Keiser, Supervisor/Assessor Bear Creek Township
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL American House Petoskey LLC, Petitioner, v Bear Creek Township, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001962 Answer and Affirmative Defenses Joel D. Wurster (P48708) Joel D. Wurster, PLC Attorney for respondent P.O. Box 2450 Petoskey, MI 49770 (231) 347-4988 joel @jdwurster.com Sarah R. Belloli Ryan, LLC Petitioner’s representative 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, MI 48084 (313) 230-0104 Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com ANSWER Bear Creek Township, (“BCT”) through its attorney, states as follows for its answer to the petition in this case: 1. No contest. 2. No contest. 3. No allegation made; not applicable. 4. No allegation made; not applicable. 5. No allegation made; not applicable. 6. No contest.
Page 3
10. No contest. 11. No contest. 12. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph. 13. Respondent admits that the appeal involves issues related only to the property’s true cash and taxable values and that there is no dispute as to the value of an addition or loss. 14. No contest. 15. No allegation made; not applicable. 16. No contest. 17. Petitioner’s contentions of value are disputed and denied as untrue. 18. No contest as to the values in dispute for the subject property. 19. Bear Creek Township requests that petitioner’s appeal be denied and that the township be awarded its costs in responding to this appeal. 20. The allegations of this paragraph, including all subparagraphs, are disputed and denied as untrue. Dated: July 16 , 2025 Joel D. Wurster (P48708) Joel D. Wurster, PLC Attorney for Bear Creek Township
Page 4
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Bear Creek Township states as follows for its affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner's claim should be dismissed for the reason that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Petitioner’s claims should be barred and dismissed to the extent that the filing or service of its petition or the pursuit of its appeal is untimely. 3. Petitioner’s claims should be barred and dismissed to the extent that the service of its petition was improper or incomplete. 4. Petitioner’s claims should be barred and dismissed to the extent it is not a proper party in interest. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrongful principles, or illegality on the part of respondent or its representatives. 6. Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in respondent’s taxing unit for the year at issue. 7. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of petitioner's property, as well as all others, to arrive at the respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper.
Page 5
9. Petitioner is asking the Tribunal to grant an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in respondent’s taxing unit. 10. Petitioner 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. 11. A decrease in the value of petitioner’s propetty is a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 12. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed the subject property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 13. Respondent reserves the right to amend its affirmative defenses during the course of this case. Dated: July 16, 2025 Joel D. Wurster (P48708) Joel D, Wurster, PLC Attorney for Bear Creek Township P.O. Box 2450 Petoskey, MI 49770 (231) 347-4988 joel@jdwurster.com
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL American House Petoskey LLC, Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 25-001962 Bear Creek Township, Answer and Affirmative Defenses Respondent. Joel D. Wurster (P48708) Sarah R. Belloli Joel D. Wurster, PLC Ryan, LL.C Attorney for respondent Petitioner’s representative P.O. Box 2450 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Petoskey, MI 49770 Troy, MI 48084 (231) 347-4988 (313) 230-0104 joel @jdwurster.com Sarah. Belloli@Ryan.com PROOF OF MAILING On the date below, I sent by first class mail a copy of respondent’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses and this Proof of Mailing to: Sarah R. Belloli Ryan, LLC 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Troy, M148084 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. Dated: July 16. 2025 Joel D. Wurster
Page 7
JOEL D. WURSTER, PLC ATTORNEY" PO. Box 2450 * 214 % PARK AVENUE PETOSKEY, MICHIGAN 49770 FOREVER Clerk Michigan Tax Terhonal P.0. Box 30232 Lansing, MT Hg909 i leeds yyy Typed fang psd digg pois]