Answer_Newburg_FINAL.pdf

Newburg Meadows Partners LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Tecumseh Respondent · 26-002823-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL



Newburg Meadows Partners LLC,



 Petitioner,

 MTT Docket No. 26-002823

v

 Parcel No. XT0-121-4600-00

City of Tecumseh,



 Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________________________/



L. RIDER BRICE, III (P60741) LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257)

Attorney for Petitioner KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

Southfield, MI 48034 Attorneys for Respondent

(248) 351-3000 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

 (248) 731-3089

_____________________________________________________________________________/



 ANSWER TO PETITION

 AND

 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES



 ANSWER



 Respondent, City of Tecumseh, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates,



P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows:



 1. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in



Paragraph 1 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.



 2. Respondent admits the allegations as to the parcel number and the address but



leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to the party in interest claim.



 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

4. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.



 5. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 5 based on information and belief.



 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6.



 7. 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 $5,300,400 $2,650,200 $2,238,746



 8. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are:



 Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value

 2026 $5,300,400 $2,650,200 $2,238,746



 9. The values in dispute for the property identified above are:



 Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value

 2026 $0 $0 $0



 10. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 10 but



denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit or that Petitioner is entitled to relief in this case.



 11. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 11, including all subparagraphs,



for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or



taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value



permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper



principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and



constitutional.



 12. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph



of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in



the above Paragraphs.



 2

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Tecumseh, requests the Tribunal dismiss the



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



equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.



 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.



 /s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________

 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

 SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257)

 KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

 Attorneys for Respondent

 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

Dated: August 25, 2026 (248) 731-3089



 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES



 Respondent, City of Tecumseh, asserts the following affirmative defenses:



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



against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.



 2. 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).



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



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



 4. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error



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



its agents.



 3

5. 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 in question.



 6. 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.



 7. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen



method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State.



 8. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it 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.



 9. 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.



 10. 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.



 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and



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



 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion.



 13. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same



may become known to it during the course of these proceedings.



 4

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.



 /s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________

 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101)

 SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257)

 KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821)

 Attorneys for Respondent

 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202

 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302

Dated: August 25, 2026 (248) 731-3089



 PROOF OF MAILING



 On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to

 Petition and Affirmative Defenses to:



 L. Rider Brice, III, Esq.

 tbrice@taftlaw.com



 I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.



 /s/Kelsea M. Melcher_______________

 Dated: August 25, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher



 5

← View full record