MTA 2026 Response_Partridge Creek_FINAL.pdf
Partridge Creek Senior Living LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Clinton, Respondent · 25-002498-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
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL PARTRIDGE CREEK SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Petitioner, v CLINTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. Docket No. 25-002498 Parcel No. 16-11-05-100-060 _____________________________________________________________________________/ STEWART L. MANDELL (P33781) DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) HONIGMAN LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 2290 First National Building 660 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226-3506 (313) 465-7420 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 _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION TO CONTEST 2026 ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUES Respondent, Clinton Charter Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Motion to Amend as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 3, including subparagraphs (a)-(c), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper
Page 2
2 principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 4. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of the Motion but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs. Respondent incorporates by reference the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to Petition herein. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Clinton Charter Township, requests the Tribunal enter an Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and dismissing the appeal. 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: May 20, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 3
3 PROOF OF SERVICE On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to: Stewart L. Mandell Honigman LLP slmandell@honigman.com Daniel L. Stanley Honigman LLP dstanley@honigman.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher_____________ Dated: May 20, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher