2025.12.01 Answer, Affirm Defenses & POS (25-003613).pdf
Greg Wendling, Lianne Wendling, Petitioners V Township Of Mt Forest, Respondent · 25-003613-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 GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL MTT DOCKET NO. ______________________ Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information First Name: M.I.: Last Name/Company Name/Unit of Government: Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route): County: City or Town: State: ZIP Code: Telephone Number: Fax Number: E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information First Name: M.I.: Last Name: Firm Name (if any): Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route): City or Town: State: ZIP Code: Telephone Number: Fax Number: E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email): Section 3: Subject Property Information Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? Yes No Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? If not, list which parcels adjoin one another. Yes No Not Applicable 25-003613 Mt. Forest Township 1705 West Cody Estey Road Bay Pinconning MI 48650 Ross K Bower II Okemos MI 48864 517-381-0100 517-381-5051 jstaffeld@fsbrlaw.com ✔ ✔ Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes, PLC 4151 Okemos Road
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? Yes No If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March July December If no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? Yes No *Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. If the July or December BOR revised the assessment(s) at issue, did it have authority? Yes No If yes, cite the Board’s authority. Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? Yes No If yes, explain Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? Yes No If so, what is the issue date? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE UNCAPPING OF TAXABLE VALUE When was the Notice of Uncapping, if applicable, issued? Under what statutory section was the Taxable Value uncapped? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF A POVERTY EXEMPTION The subject property is accurately and lawfully assessed at no more than 50% of its True Cash Value as of the applicable date of value. This appeal is severed from MTT Docket No. 24-002359 pursuant to order dated October 17, 2025. Therefore, Respondent agrees that Petitioner was not required to attend the March Board of Review pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule 273. ✔ ✔ ✔
Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS LANSING MARLON I. BROWN, DPA DIRECTOR Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption at a BOR? Yes No If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March July December List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS Did Petitioner request the exemption at a BOR? Yes No If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: March July December Tax Year(s) denied: List the date the exemption was denied: What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY What do you believe the classification should be: Real Personal (check one) Agricultural Commercial Industrial Residential Timber-Cutover Developmental Utility (check one) Section 6: Valuation Information *Use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. Parcel Identification Number: Classification of Property: Real Personal (check one) Agricultural Commercial Industrial Residential Timber-Cutover Developmental Utility (check one) Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)? Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value. Signature *Required Respondent or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: /s/ ✔ ✔ Ross K. Bower II 09-110-023-200-010-00 $204,300 $85,250 $408,600 $408,600
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GREG AND LIANNE WENDLING, Petitioner, v MT. FOREST TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-003613 PARCEL NO. 09-110-023-200-010-00 ______________________________________/ Andrew C. Thompson (P67984) Poznak Dyer Kanar Schefsky Thompson PLC Attorney for Petitioner 143 McDonald Street Midland, MI 48640-5118 (989) 832-1770 athompson@pdkg.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 Mt. Forest 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 5
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 6
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. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent December 1, 2025 _________________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com sreetz@fsbrlaw.com
Page 7
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL GREG AND LIANNE WENDLING, Petitioner, v MT. FOREST TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 25-003613 PARCEL NO. 09-110-023-200-010-00 ______________________________________/ Andrew C. Thompson (P67984) Poznak Dyer Kanar Schefsky Thompson PLC Attorney for Petitioner 143 McDonald Street Midland, MI 48640-5118 (989) 832-1770 athompson@pdkg.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 December 1, 2025 she served a copy of Property Tax Appeal Answer Form Valuation/Exemption/Classification Appeal, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Andrew C. Thompson Poznak Dyer Kanar Schefsky Thompson PLC 143 McDonald Street Midland, MI 48640-5118 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld