Answer, Aff Def & POS 2067.pdf
Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Macomb, Respondent · 25-002067-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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL TEXAS ROADHOUSE HOLDINGS LLC, Petitioner, VS. MTT Docket No. 25-002067 MACOMB TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494) TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) ALEX MORSE YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc. Attorneys for Respondent Representatives for Petitioner 22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 Clinton Township, MI 48036 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (586) 263-5050 (317) 689-6467 — ofc ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com (917) 488-7825 — mobile msilvey@dmainc.com amorse(@dmainc.com RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO PETITION (Entire Tribunal, 2025 Tax Year) NOW COMES the Respondent, Macomb Township, by and through its attorneys, York, Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and in answer to Petitioner's Petition, states as follows: 1. Respondent admits paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits paragraph 3. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto.
Page 2
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Respondent admits paragraph 5. Respondent admits paragraph 6. Respondent admits paragraph 7. Respondent admits paragraph 8. Respondent admits paragraph 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 4 being without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief thereto. Respondent denies paragraph 11 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. Respondent admits paragraph 12. Respondent admits paragraph 13. Defendant denies paragraph 14 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. Defendant denies paragraph 15 because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. Defendant denies paragraph 16, including (a) thru (d), because it is untrue, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter.
Page 3
Respectfully submitted, YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorneys for Respondent 22600 Hall Road, Ste. 205 Clinton Twp., MI 48036 (586) 263-5050 ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com Dated: August 20, 2025
Page 4
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL
TEXAS ROADHOUSE HOLDINGS LLC,
Petitioner,
Vs.
MACOMB TOWNSHIP,
Respondent.
MTT Docket No. 25-002067
MICHELLE M. SILVEY (P69494)
ALEX MORSE
DuCharme, McMillen & Assoc. Inc.
Representatives for Petitioner
9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375
Indianapolis, IN 46240
(317) 689-6467 — ofc
(917) 488-7825 — mobile
msilvey@dmainc.com
amorse@dmainc.com
TIMOTHY D. TOMLINSON (P48519)
YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C.
Attorneys for Respondent
22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205
Clinton Township, MI
48036
(586) 263-5050
ttomlinson{@yorkdolanlaw.com
RESPONDENT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COMES the Respondent, Macomb Township, by and through its attorneys, York,
Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and for its Affirmative Defenses, states as follows:
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.
Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of
law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of
the Respondent.
3.
Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property
failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all of thePage 5
10. properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. Petitioner fails 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 is allegations that that the property’s taxable value is improper. Petitioner fails 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. Petitioner, in essence, asks 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. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 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. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
Page 6
11. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. Respectfully submitted, YORK, DOLAN & TOMLINSON, P.C. —ol/ TIMOTHYMD. TOMLINSON (P48519) Attorneys for Respondent 22600 Hall Rd., Ste. 205 Clinton Township, MI 48036 (586) 263-5050 ttomlinson@yorkdolanlaw.com Dated: August 20, 2025 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 i that the foregoing instrument was at Ce hove cased each of the attorneys speciiye addresses disclosed 5% 29,