2026.07.28 Answer to Petition re Grandville (CTL Propco).pdf
Ctl Propco I LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Grandville Respondent · 26-000593-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 _________________________ CTL PROPCO I LLC, Petitioner, v. CITY OF GRANDVILLE, Respondent. Docket No. 26-000593 Parcel No. 41-17-29-151-014 Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com Adam J. Brody (P62035) Deborah I. Ondersma (P55907) VARNUM LLP Attorneys for Respondent Bridgewater Place P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 (616) 336-6000 ajbrody@varnumlaw.com diondersma@varnumlaw.com ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, City of Grandville, by and through its attorneys VARNUM LLP, states as follows for its answer to Petitioner's Petition: 1. ☒ The Property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number 41-17-29-151-014 Address 3774 Rivertown Pky SW Classification 201 COMM IMP Use Retail County Kent Sch Dist Grandville Public Schools ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 1. 2. ☒ N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent's:
Page 2
2 ☐ March, ☐ July, ☐ December Board of Review. ANSWER: No allegation is made in paragraph 2; therefore, no response is required. Respondent affirmatively states that the Petition did not appeal the subject property to any of Respondent’s Boards of Review. 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent admits that the City of Grandville, through its assessor and Board of Review, assesses and collects taxes assessed under Michigan’s General Property Tax Act on the subject property. 4. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies whether Petitioner is a party-in-interest as such allegation consists of a legal conclusion to which no answer is required or given. Respondent does admit that CTL PROPCO I LLC is listed as the taxpayer of record in Respondent’s Assessor’s record. 5. The Petitioner's principal office/legal residence address is: 66 Hudson Blvd E FL 24, New York, NY 10001. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the location of Petitioner’s principal office or legal residence as Respondent is without information sufficient to form a belief as to this alleged fact. Respondent admits that the address of record that Respondent has for Petitioner is 66 Hudson Blvd E FL 24, New York, NY 10001. 6. This appeal involves issues related to: ☒ the subject property's true cash value and taxable values ☐ the subject property's taxable value only there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ uniformity of the subject property's assessment ☐ the subject property's exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL _________ ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 6, upon information and belief. 7. The tax year at issue is 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations of paragraph 7.
Page 3
3 8. The values1 established by Respondent's Board of Review for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 41-17-29-151-014 2,744,000 1,372,000 1,372,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits that the values alleged in paragraph 8 are the tax year 2026 values established by Respondent for the subject property. 9. Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 41-17-29-151-014 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that the values asserted in paragraph 9 are those contended by Petitioner for tax year 2026. Respondent denies that the Petitioner's asserted values would be appropriate and further states that the subject property is properly and uniformly assessed. 10. The values1 in dispute are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 41-17-29-151-014 744,000 372,000 372,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that the values asserted in paragraph 10 correctly calculate the difference between the values asserted in paragraphs 8 and 9 and relate to tax year 2026. Respondent denies that the Petitioner's contended values would be appropriate and further states that the subject property is properly and uniformly assessed. 11. Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner's property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (a) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; (b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 1 TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.
Page 4
4 (c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and (d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations of paragraph 11, including all parts thereof, for the reason that they are not true. Respondent further states that the subject property is properly and uniformly assessed. Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established by Respondent's Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. ANSWER: Respondent denies that the relief requested by Petitioner for tax year 2026 would be appropriate. The subject property is properly and uniformly assessed. WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that this Tribunal affirms Respondent's assessment of the property, dismiss Petitioner's Petition and award Respondent any other relief deemed appropriate, including costs and attorney fees. Respectfully submitted, VARNUM LLP Attorneys for Respondent Dated: July 28, 2026 By:__/s/ Deborah I. Ondersma________________ Adam J. Brody (P62035) Deborah I. Ondersma (P55907) BUSINESS ADDRESS & TELEPHONE: Bridgewater Place P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 (616) 336-6000 ajbrody@varnumlaw.com diondersma@varnumlaw.com
Page 5
5 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES Respondent states that it may rely on one or all of the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Petitioner may not be a proper party in interest and the Tribunal therefore may not have jurisdiction over this appeal for this additional reason. 3. Petitioner may not have standing to pursue this appeal. 4. Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because all assessment and valuation methods used by Respondent City of Grandville were in compliance with prevailing State Tax Commission procedures and in accordance with Michigan law. 5. Petitioner is a foreign limited liability company that is not licensed to do business in Michigan, and therefore lacks capacity to bring this appeal in the Michigan Tax Tribunal under MCL 450.5007. 6. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses made known to it through discovery in this matter. Respectfully submitted, VARNUM, LLP Attorneys for Respondent Dated: July 28, 2026 By:__/s/ Deborah I. Ondersma__________ Adam J. Brody (P62035) Deborah I. Ondersma (P55907) Bridgewater Place P.O. Box 352 Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352 (616) 336-6000 ajbrody@varnumlaw.com diondersma@varnumlaw.com 29416642.1