Moceri DM Investments LLC 26-001625 Answer to Petitioner's Petition 9-15-26.pdf
Moceri/Dm Investments, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Bloomfield Hills Respondent · 26-001625-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 S E C R E S T W A R D L E STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MOCERI/DM INVESTMENTS, LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001625-TT Parcel No. 12-19-14-152-005 and -vs- Parcel No. 12-19-14-152-007 CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________________________/ WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, PC Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) Richard E. Rassel, III (P57540) Jason C. Long (P59244) Attorneys for Petitioner 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 642-0333 jpesick@wwrplaw.com rerassel@wwrplaw.com jlong@wwrplaw.com SECREST WARDLE Alana E. Knox (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 aknox@secrestwardle.com _________________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONERS’ ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, by and through its attorneys, SECREST WARDLE, and for its Answer to Petitioners’ Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states as follows: 1. Answering paragraph 1, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 2. Answering paragraph 2, Respondent admits the same.
Page 2
2 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 3. Answering paragraph 3, Respondent admits that Moceri/DM Investments, LLC is a party in interest with respect to parcel 12-19-14-152-005 and parcel 12-19-14-152-007, commonly known as 39515 Woodward Ave, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 4. Answering paragraph 4, Respondent admits that parcel 12-19-14-152-005 and parcel 12-19-14-152-007 is located in Oakland County and within the Bloomfield Hills School District. 5. Answering paragraph 5, Respondent admits the same. 6. Answering paragraph 6, Respondent admits the same. 7. Answering paragraph 7, Respondent admits that the subject property’s 2026 true cash, assessed and taxable values on the Respondent’s assessment roll are as follows: PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE ASSESSED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE 12-19-14-152-005 $ 1,333,260 $ 666,630 $ 664,410 12-19-14-152-007 $ 326,020 $ 163,010 $ 163,010 8. Answering paragraph 8, Respondent denies that the subject property’s 2026 true cash, state equalized and taxable values were no higher than: PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE STATE EQUALIZED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE 12-19-14-152-005 $ 640,000 $ 320,000 $ 320,000 12-19-14-152-007 $ 160,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000 9. Answering paragraph 9, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 9 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs.
Page 3
3 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 10. Answering paragraph 10, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 11. Answering paragraph 11, Respondent denies that the 2026 assessment violates the Michigan Constitution, the GPTA and other Michigan law, is based on erroneous principles and information, and a misapplication of valuation principles. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. 12. Answering paragraph 12, Respondent denies that it is overestimating the value for parcel 12-19-14-152-005 and parcel 12-19-14-152-007. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 12 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioners to their proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, denies that Petitioners are entitled to the relief they seek and Respondent respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioners’ Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Dr., P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 Dated: September 15, 2026 aknox@secrestwardle.com
Page 4
4 S E C R E S T W A R D L E AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For its further Answer to Petitioners’ Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent respectfully requests unto this Honorable Tribunal as follows: 1. Petitioners fail to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 2. Petitioners fail to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 3. Petitioners fail to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 4. Petitioners fail to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. Petitioners fail to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 6. Petitioners fail to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive at the respective equalized assessments. 7. Petitioners, in essence, ask that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. 8. Petitioners, in essence, seek 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. 9. Petitioners failed to allege to the Board of Review that:
Page 5
5 S E C R E S T W A R D L E A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the Township, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. C. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent’s Board of Review constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioners to appear in protest to Respondent’s Board of review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 10. Any decrease in the value of Petitioners’ property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioners’ 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. Petitioners failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF BLOOMFIELD HILLS, denies that Petitioners are entitled to the relief they seek and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased and that Petitioners’ Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred.
Page 6
6 S E C R E S T W A R D L E Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Dr., P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 Dated: September 15, 2026 aknox@secrestwardle.com PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 15, 2026, a copy of the foregoing document, Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition and Affirmative Defenses, was filed electronically with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, and was served upon: Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C. Jerome P. Pesick, Esq. Richard E. Rassel, III, Esq. Jason C. Long, Esq. 380 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 by depositing same in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon. /s/ Tamera Briggs Tamera Briggs (10993499.1)