Answer, Aff Def, & POS 25-002365.pdf
Wade A Miller, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Napoleon, Respondent · 25-002365-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MILLER, WADE A., Petitioner, v NAPOLEON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-002365 PARCEL NO. 000-14-19-326-003-03 ______________________________________/ Wade A. Miller In pro per 1603 Lansing Avenue Jackson, MI 49202 (517) 499-9528 Wam11miller@yahoo.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, NAPOLEON TOWNSHIP, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, hereby answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states as follows: 1. Property Parcel No: 000-14-19-326-003-03 (If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. The property identified above is X real personal.
Page 2
2 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? Yes No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non- contiguous parcel.) ANSWER: N/A (only one parcel of real property is under appeal) 4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? Yes No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under appeal.) ANSWER: N/A (no personal property is under appeal) 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A 6. The property identified above is classified as 201 (COMMERCIAL-IMPROVED) ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s X March July December Board of Review. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue (attach
Page 3
3 additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A 10. The property or properties at issue are located in JACKSON County. The property or properties’ address is: 3385 Miles Road Jackson, MI 49201 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Assessor and Board of Review Napoleon Township ANSWER: Respondent admits that Napoleon Township is the applicable local governmental unit that established the assessment at issue. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 1603 Lansing Ave. Jackson, MI 49202 ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): X the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values the property or properties’ taxable value only If the property or properties’ taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? Yes No uniformity of the property or properties’ assessment the property or the properties’ exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to contest the true cash and taxable values of the property. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2025
Page 4
4 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to contest the 2025 true cash and taxable values of the property. 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years (attach additional page if necessary): ANSWER: N/A 16. 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 2025 847,600 423,800 402,969 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 141,814 70,907 70,907 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner apparently makes the indicated contentions, but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit, and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 705,786 352,893 332,062 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner apparently makes the indicated contentions, but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit, incorporating its answer to paragraph 17. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Reduce the values established by Respondent’s Board of Review to reflect the values established by the marketing of the property. Recalculate tax bills based on the reduced values. Refund, to the Petitioner, any excess taxes paid plus interest.
Page 5
5 ANSWER: Respondent denies that Petitioner’s contentions of value have merit, incorporating its answer to paragraph 17. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): The 2023 arm’s length sale of the property to the Petitioner for $131,000. The Data produced by the Petitioner’s ongoing marketing of the property that began on September 4th, 2024. The negative impact that excessive taxes are having on the property’s TCV and the Petitioner’s efforts to sell the property. The overall condition of the property that has deteriorated further since the Petitioner acquired it in 2023. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent respectfully requests that the tribunal deny Petitioner’s request. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: August 26, 2025 _________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MILLER, WADE A., Petitioner, v NAPOLEON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-002365 PARCEL NO. 000-14-19-326-003-03 ______________________________________/ Wade A. Miller In pro per 1603 Lansing Avenue Jackson, MI 49202 (517) 499-9528 Wam11miller@yahoo.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent NAPOLEON TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner failed to state a claim for which its requested relief, or any other relief, may be granted. 2. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s conduct renders it estopped or otherwise barred from asserting the claims presented in the Petition. 3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, laches, and/or undue delay.
Page 7
2 4. Petitioner’s legal theories and requested relief are either not recognized as valid under Michigan law or have no application to the facts of this case. 5. Some or all of Petitioner’s claims and requests for relief are barred on jurisdictional or jurisprudential grounds as moot, not ripe, and/or not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and authority. 6. There is no issue of material fact, and Respondent is entitled to the dismissal of the Petition in its entirety and with prejudice. 7. Petitioner waived any right to assert the claims presented in the petition, or its claims are otherwise barred in whole or in part, by lack of standing, failure to be the real party in interest, agreement, consent, acquiescence, ratification, course of conduct or performance, promissory and/or other estoppel, misrepresentation, release, abandonment, or violation of law. 8. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent. 9. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to support its allegation that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% of the subject property’s true cash value or that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect. 10. Petitioner has asked this Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different that that utilized in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to Respondent’s remaining taxpayers.
Page 8
3 11. Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. 12. Petitioner’s characterization of the assessment(s) and taxes is contrary to law and refuted by documentary evidence. 13. Respondent reserves the right to amend and supplement these affirmative defenses as facts are learned through continuing investigation and discovery and as the Tribunal permits. Dated: August 26, 2025 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MILLER, WADE A., Petitioner, v NAPOLEON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-002365 PARCEL NO. 000-14-19-326-003-03 ______________________________________/ Wade A. Miller In pro per 1603 Lansing Avenue Jackson, MI 49202 (517) 499-9528 Wam11miller@yahoo.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on August 26, 2025 she served a copy of Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Wade A. Miller 1603 Lansing Avenue Jackson, MI 49202 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld