Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses 25-001756.pdf

Morbark LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Fremont, Respondent · 25-001756-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 

______________________ 

 

MORBARK LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v. 

 

FREMONT TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No. 25-001756 

 

Parcel ID No. 07-015-30-002-03 

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Daniel L. Stanley (P57052) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

222 North Washington Square 

Suite 400 

Lansing, MI 48933-1800 

(517) 377-0714 

dstanley@honigman.com 

Michael D. Homier (P60318) 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

mhomier@fosterswift.com 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESPONDENT FREMONT TOWNSHIP’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

 

Respondent, Fremont Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & 

Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answers to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 

1. 

Petitioner's principal office address is 8507 S. Winn Road, Winn, MI 48896. 

Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel no(s). 07-015-30-

002-03 ("Petitioner's Property"), at 8705 S. Winn Road located in Isabella County, Michigan. 

If this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the tax parcels are contiguous. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations regarding Petitioner’s 

principal office address and whether Petitioner is a “party in interest” as Respondent is 

without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegations. 

Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

2. 

Respondent, Fremont Twp. – Isabella, assesses and collects property taxes on 

Petitioner's Property. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. 

3. 

In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be 

$9,096,884 and assessed Petitioner's Property at $9,446,600, which will result in a state 

equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 

4. 

Petitioner's Property is classified as Industrial Real. Petitioner's Property is 

presently used or available for use for Industrial purposes. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's 

Property was originally designed to be used for Industrial purposes. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent admits that the property is classified as Industrial Real. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 4 as 

Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the 

remaining allegations in paragraph 4. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable 

value and (d) uniformity. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in paragraph 5 of the 

Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. 

At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a 

dispute relative to the value of a loss. 

ANSWER: 

As Paragraph 6 pleads no facts, this Paragraph is insufficient to raise an 

issue for appeal (TTR 227(1)) and fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted 

(MCR 2.116 (C) (8)). The allegations are denied. 

7. 

If P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest for Petitioner’s Property, 

a board of review protest was filed in March, 2025. 

ANSWER: 

Paragraph 7 of the Petition does not contain a factual allegation requiring 

a response but is a hypothetical. To the extent that paragraph 7 contains a factual

allegation, Respondent denies the allegation and leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to 

whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Respondent reserves its right to object to 

jurisdiction if Petitioner failed to comply to the requirements of MCL 205.735a. 

8. 

The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed 

on Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and 

unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, 

exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are 

at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are 

based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's 

Property that is taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong 

principles; and, 

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and 

the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny 

Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

ANSWER: 

Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition, 

including all allegations made in subparagraphs a. through d., and leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs as the assessed, state equalized and 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 the correct application of proper principals, and do not discriminate 

against Petitioner.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, Fremont Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & 

Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 

1. 

The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those 

methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 

2. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of 

action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

3. 

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 the Respondent. 

4. 

Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 

2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: 

a. 

The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and 

(2)(f). 

b. 

The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject 

matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. 

c. 

The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is 

incorrect. 

d. 

The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different 

values. 

e. 

The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 

5. 

Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 

6. 

Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 

7. 

The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 

2.116(C)(4) and (8). 

8. 

Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, 

failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes

were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and 

Respondent should be awarded damages. 

9. 

Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and 

established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

10. 

Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become 

known to it through discovery in this matter. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable 

values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and 

attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable. 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH PC 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Dated: June 30, 2025 

By: 

____________________________________ 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

 

89469:00001:201705354-1

← View full record