Respondent's Resp. and Affirm. Defenses to Petitioner's Property Tax Petition.pdf
Orf VII Felch Street LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Holland Respondent · 26-001498-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 ORF VII STREET LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, Docket No. 26-001498 v Parcel No. 70-16-16-100-009. HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, and additional parcels Respondent. Laura M. Hallahan Bradley J. Fisher (P64608) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. SCHOLTEN FANT Attorney for Petitioner Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 100 N. Third Street Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 Grand Haven, MI 49417 (248) 731-3089 (616) 842-3030 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com bfisher@scholtenfant.com RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, SCHOLTEN FANT, and for its Response to Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition states as follows: 1. The property that is the subject of this appeal consists of these contiguous real property parcels: REAL PROPERTY - CONTIGUOUS Parcel Number Address Classification Use 70-16-16-100-099 3050 Beeline Rd 50-60 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-078 12635 Felch St Ste 20 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-082 12635 Felch St Ste 20 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-087 3050 Beeline Rd Ste 20 | 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-083 12635 Felch St Ste 50 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-084 12635 Felch St Ste 40 201- Comm Retail
Page 2
70-16-16-100-085 12635 Felch St Ste 30 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-088 3050 Beeline Rd Ste 10 201- Comm Retail 70-16-16-100-100 3050 Beeline Rd 30-40 201- Comm Retail RESPONSE: Admitted upon information and belief. 2. N/A. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: o March, oJuly, o©December Board of Review. RESPONSE: N/A 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. RESPONSE: Admitted. 4. The subject property is located in the County of Ottawa and school district of West Ottawa Public School District. RESPONSE: Admitted. 5. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. RESPONSE: Admitted upon information and belief. 6. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 5865 North Point Parkway, Suite 350, Alpharetta, GA 30022. RESPONSE: Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 7. This appeal involves issues related to: the subject property’s true cash and taxable values [J the subject property’s taxable value only there is a dispute as to the vale of an addition or loss: [] Yes [] No [J uniformity of the subject property’s assessment [J the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL RESPONSE: Admitted upon information and belief.
Page 3
8. The tax year is 2026. RESPONSE: Admitted. 9. The subject property is listed on the attachment, including by parcel number: a. b. c. Respondent’s Board of Review established values. Petitioner’s value contentions; and Values in dispute: RESPONSE: a. Admitted b. Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. ¢. Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 10. 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. b. The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statues; The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statues; The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principle; and 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. RESPONSE: a-d denied as untrue. 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.
Page 4
RESPONSE: Respondent Holland Charter Township respectfully requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner its requested relief, affirm Respondent’s assessment of the subject property, award Respondent its costs and attorney’s fees in responding to this action and award such further relief as it deems appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, SC EN FANT Bradley J. Fishek (P64608) Attorneys for Respondent Holland Charter Townshi Dated: October 1, 2026
Page 5
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, Scholten Fant, and hereby offers the following Affirmative Defenses to the Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition: 1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 2. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. 4. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. Si The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. 6. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, such that Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and, such that Respondent should be awarded damages. 7. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, to dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, HOLTEN FANT Dated: October 1, 2026 Bradley JFisher (P64608) Attorneys for Respondent Holland Charter Township