Oak Park- TT Answer and Aff Defenses.pdf

Christ New Covenant Church, Petitioner Vs. City Of Oak Park, Respondent · 25-002101-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

CHRIST NEW COVENANT CHURCH, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No.: 25-002101 

 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property ID # 52-25-19-226-013 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF OAK PARK, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

KERI S. SABBATH 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

Petitioner’s Authorized Representative 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

25 Birdwoode Dr. 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

Pontiac MI 48340 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

Altair2257@gmail.com 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

(586) 863-8010 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ckrause@garanlucow.com 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S TAX PETITION 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, CITY OF OAK PARK, by and through its attorneys, 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C., and in answer to Petitioner’s petition states as follows: 

 

1. 

Answering paragraph 1, Respondent admits that the property parcel 

number subject to the Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition is 52-25-19-226-013. 

 

2. 

Answering paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained 

therein. 

 

3. 

Answering paragraph 3, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable. 

 

4. 

Answering paragraph 4, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable.

2

 

5. 

Answering paragraph 5, Respondent admits that parcels of personal 

property are not under appeal. 

 

6. 

Answering paragraph 6, Respondent admits that the property is properly 

classified as commercial-improved. 

 

7. 

Answering paragraph 7, Respondent admits the allegations contained 

therein. 

 

8. 

Answering paragraph 8, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable. 

9. 

Answering paragraph 9, Respondent admits that this paragraph is not 

applicable. 

10. 

Answering paragraph 10, Respondent admits that the property at issue is 

located in Oakland County and is commonly known as 14001 W Eleven Mile Rd., Oak 

Park, MI 48237. 

11. 

Answering paragraph 11, Respondent admits that the assessment at issue 

was established by the City of Oak Park. 

12. 

Answering paragraph 12, Petitioner has left this paragraph blank and 

Respondent is without sufficient information or knowledge to identify the Petitioner’s legal 

residence or principal office. 

13. 

Answering paragraph 13, Petitioner left this paragraph black. Respondent 

otherwise acknowledges that this appeal involves issues relating to the property’s 

exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL 211.7s for the tax year 2025, only. 

Pursuant to the Order for Partial Dismissal entered by the Tribunal on August 12, 2025, 

the Tribunal has no authority over the assessments for tax years 2022-2024.

3

14. 

Answering paragraph 14, Respondent admits that the only tax year at issue 

is 2025. Respondent denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 14 pursuant to the 

Order for Partial Dismissal entered by the Tribunal on August 12, 2025. 

15. 

Answering paragraph 15, denies the allegations as untrue. Petitioner has 

not presented the Respondent with any information suggesting that services are being 

held in the building. Respondent further avers that the building is vacant, utility service to 

the building has been shut off since 2022 and the property has been subject to multiple 

code enforcement actions for trash/debris, overgrown weeds and grass, graffiti, and 

property maintenance violations including failure to complete timely snow removal. 

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 

$293,600 

$146,800 

$146,800 

 

 

17. 

Answering paragraph 17, Respondent denies that the Petitioner’s property 

is exempt for the reason that the property does not qualify for an exemption under MCL 

211.7s. 

 

18. 

Answering paragraph 18, Respondent denies that the subject property is 

exempt from ad valorem taxation under MCL 211.7s. The values in dispute for the 

property identified above are: 

Tax Year 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

2025 

$293,600 

$146,800 

$146,800

4

 

19. 

Answering paragraph 19, Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to 

the requested relief when the property is not used predominantly for religious services or 

for reaching the religious truths and beliefs of the Petitioner. 

 

20. 

Answering paragraph 20, Respondent acknowledges that Petitioner is 

seeking an exemption pursuant to MCR 211.7s as a house of worship. Respondent 

denies that Petitioner is entitled to the exemption when the property is not used 

predominantly for religious services or for reaching the religious truths and beliefs of the 

Petitioner. When a taxpayer seeks an exemption, that taxpayer has the burden of proving 

entitlement to it by a preponderance of the evidence. Contrary to the Petitioner’s 

assertions, the property is currently vacant and listed for sale. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF OAK PARK, asks this Honorable Tribunal 

to affirm the decision of Respondent’s Board of Review and find that the subject property 

does not qualify for the parsonage exemption under MCL 211.7s. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ckrause@garanlucow.com 

Dated: August 26, 2025 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

 

For its further answer to the Petition, Respondent asserts the following Affirmative 

Defenses:

5

1. 

The subject property does not qualify for an example under MCL 211.7s 

when it is not used predominantly for religious services or for teaching 

religious truths and beliefs and is otherwise vacant and for-sale. 

2. 

The subject property is not occupied as a parsonage as required by MCL 

211.7s. Furthermore, MCL 211.7s requires a society seeking a tax 

exemption to prove that it uses otherwise taxable property “predominantly” 

for religious purposes. On the contrary, all of the evidence suggests that the 

Petitioner does not utilize the property at all. 

3. 

Petitioner did not present the Respondent’s Board of Review with any 

evidence to show the alleged use of the subject property. 

4. 

Respondent reserves the right to argue additional affirmative defenses 

during the pendency of this action. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COURTNEY A. KRAUSE (P70581) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Detroit, MI 48207-2641 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313.446.5522 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ckrause@garanlucow.com 

Dated: August 26, 2025

6

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument 

was served upon the attorneys of record of all parties to the above 

cause at their respective addresses as disclosed by the pleadings of 

record herein on August 26, 2025. 

 

By: 

■ First Class US Mail 

□ Facsimile 

□ Hand Delivery 

 

□ Overnight Courier 

 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the statement above is 

true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

 

 

/s/ Courtney A. Krause 

Courtney Krause 

Attorney for Plaintiff

← View full record