Answer_Century Southfield.pdf
Century Southfield LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield Respondent · 26-000756-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CENTURY SOUTHFIELD LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000756 Parcel No. 76-24-22-426-001 _____________________________________________________________________________/ EVA T. CANTARELLA (P51917) HERTZ SCHRAM P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 1760 S. Telegraph Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0183 (248) 335-5000 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, City of Southfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the assertions set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent admits that per its assessment records the subject property is comprised of 9.18 acres as well as multiple office buildings and parking structures. 3. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
2 4. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 7. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 8. 9. Respondent admits the subject property was classified as 201 Commercial- Improved for the 2026 tax year but lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 10. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 11. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 12. 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 2026 $18,374,040 $9,187,020 $8,894,230 13. Respondent admits the allegation in Paragraph 13. 14. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $18,374,040 $9,187,020 $8,894,230 15. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s claim of over assessment but denies Petitioner’s claim has merit for the reasons set forth above and below. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 16. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
3 17. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies any implication that a April 22, 2026 sale is determinative of the subject property’s true cash value as of December 31, 2025. 18. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 19. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 20. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 and., therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 21. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 22. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 and, therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent denies any implication that the subject property’s occupancy, or lack thereof, as of 2008, 2026 or any year thereafter bears any relevancy to the subject property’s true cash value as of December 31, 2025. 23. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 24. Respondent acknowledges the contentions of value set forth by Petitioner but denies said values are reflective of the subject property’s true cash value as of December 31, 2025 or that said values otherwise comply with Michigan law. 25. Upon information and belief, Respondent admits there is no dispute relative to an addition or loss. 26. Respondent denies that Petitioner has the right to claim a dispute relative to an addition or loss when Petitioner has not pled any such issue in its initial Petition. 27. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to such relief for the reasons set forth above. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Southfield, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees.
Page 4
4 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: August 11, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 5
5 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Southfield, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 2. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 3. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). 4. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent or its agents. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 6. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 7. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 8. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 9. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 10. Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings.
Page 6
6 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan_______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: August 11, 2026 (258) 731-3089 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Eva T. Cantarella Hertz Schram P.C. ecantarella@hertzschram.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Laura M. Hallahan_______________ Dated: August 11, 2026 Laura M. Hallahan