2026-08-25 40th St Answer and Appearance.pdf

40Th St Holdings, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Grand Rapids Respondent · 26-000913-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.

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

 

 

 

40TH ST HOLDINGS, LLC, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-000913 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 41-18-20-600-008 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) 

Jason C. Long (P59244) 

Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 642-0333 

jpesick@wwrplaw.com 

jlong@wwrplaw.com

Kendall R. O’Connor (P84036) 

Lee S. Schofield (P62748) 

Grand Rapids Department of Law 

Attorneys for Respondent 

300 Monroe Ave NW, Suite 620 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

(616) 456-3103 

koconnor@grand-rapids.mi.us 

lschofield@grand-rapids.mi.us

______________________________________________________________________________ 

RESPONDENT’S APPEARANCE AND ANSWER TO PETITION 

WITH PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

NOW COMES Kendall R. O’Connor and Lee S. Schofield for the City of Grand Rapids, 

who hereby enters their Appearance of Counsel on behalf of Respondent City of Grand Rapids, and 

answers Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Petitioner 40TH ST HOLDINGS, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company 

with its principal place of business located in Michigan at 400 Hamilton Row, Ste 300, 

Birmingham, MI 48009. 

ANSWER: Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 of Petitioner’s Petition and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs.

2 

 

2. 

Respondent City of Grand Rapids is a Michigan city with its principal offices 

located at 300 Monroe Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of Petitioner’s Petition. 

The Subject Property 

3. 

Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 41-18-20-600-008 and commonly 

known as 925 SE 40th Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49548 (the “Subject Property”). 

ANSWER: Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

4. 

The Subject Property is located in Kent County and is within the Godwin Heights 

Public School District. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits only that the property with Parcel No. 41-18-20-600-

008 and commonly known as 925 SE 40th Street, Grand Rapids, MI 49548 is located 

in Kent County and is within the Godwin Heights Public School District. Respondent 

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any 

remaining allegations in paragraph 4 of Petitioner’s Petition and leaves Petitioner to 

its proofs. 

 

5. 

Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the 

Subject Property. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 5 of Petitioner’s Petition. 

The 2026 Assessment 

6. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as commercial 

real property. 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of Petitioner’s Petition 

as untrue. Respondent further states that the property with the parcel number 41-18-

20-600-008 was classified for tax year 2026 as industrial real property.

3 

 

7. 

For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment 

for property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

2,763,200

1,381,600

1,294,884

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations and corresponding values in 

paragraph 7 of Petitioner’s Petition. 

 

8. 

Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2026 

tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: 

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

1,800,000

900,000

900,000

 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations and corresponding values in paragraph 

8 of Petitioner’s Petition as untrue. 

 

9. 

The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: 

True Cash Value

Assessed Value

Taxable Value

963,200

481,600

394,884

 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations and corresponding values in dispute in 

paragraph 9 of Petitioner’s Petition. 

 

10. 

This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for 

assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out 

of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), 

defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues should information supporting such 

become available. 

ANSWER: Paragraph 10 of Petitioner’s Petition contains legal conclusions to which 

no response is required. To the response any response is required, Respondent lacks 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations 

in paragraph 10 of Petitioner’s Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

4 

 

11. 

The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the 

GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based 

on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of 

Petitioner’s Petition as untrue. 

 

12. 

Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2026 assessment is not uniform 

aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject Property’s 

values. 

ANSWER: Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 of Petitioner’s Petition regarding 

assertion of uniformity and denies as untrue all remaining allegations in paragraph 

12 of Petitioner’s Petition, including the allegation of a lack of uniformity resulting 

from overestimation of the Subject Property’s values. 

 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Grand Rapids prays that this Honorable Tribunal 

dismiss the Petition and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

 

CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, 

a Michigan municipal corporation 

 

 

Dated: August 25, 2026 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Lee S. Schofield 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Lee S. Schofield (P62748) 

 Assistant City Attorney 

 Attorney for Respondent

5 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

Alma Echeverria, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Paralegal in the 

Office of the City Attorney, attorneys for Respondent herein, and that on August 25, 2026, she 

served true and complete copies of Respondent’s Appearance and Answer to Petition via first 

class mail and email, upon: 

 

 

Jerome Pesick 

Jason C. Long 

Williams, Williams, Pattner & Plunkett, PC 

Attorney for Petitioner 

380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 300 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

jpesick@wwrplaw.com 

jlong@wwrplaw.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Alma Echeverria 

 

 

 Alma Echeverria

← View full record