25001638 Pontiac Answer - Friedman.pdf
Friedman Real Estate Management Company, Petitioner Vs. City Of Pontiac, Respondent · 25-001638-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
CLARKHILL\18836\1004951\282529578.v1-7/21/25 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MTT Docket No. 25-001638 Parcel No. 64-14-17-401-046 FRIEDMAN REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Petitioner, v CITY OF PONTIAC, Respondent. / John-Paul Wolfe Authorized Representative for Petitioner Friedman Real Estate Management Company 34975 W. Twelve Mile Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 848-4154 Elizabeth White McDonnell (P62561) Sean P. Fitzgerald (P60654) CLARK HILL PLC Attorneys for Respondent 200 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 608-1131 ewhitemcdonnell@clarkhill.com sfitzgerald@clarkhill.com / RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, City of Pontiac, by and through its attorneys, Clark Hill PLC, hereby answers the Petition filed by Petitioner, Friedman Real Estate Management Company, and states as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of the Petition. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Petition. 3. No answer is required to the allegation in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4. No answer is required to the allegation in paragraph 4 of the Petition. 5. No answer is required to the allegation in paragraph 5 of the Petition. 6. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 7 of the Petition.
Page 2
2 CLARKHILL\18836\1004951\282529578.v1-7/21/25 8. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 8 of the Petition. 9. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 9 of the Petition. 10. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. Respondent admits the allegations in paragraph 11 of the Petition. 12. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition. 13. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition. 14. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition. 15. No answer is required to the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Petition. 16. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 16 of the Petition. 17. Respondent denies as untrue the allegations in paragraph 17 of the Petition. 18. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 18 of the Petition. 19. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 19 of the Petition. 20. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 20 of the Petition. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, sustain the assessed, taxable and true cash values with respect to the property as established by
Page 3
3 CLARKHILL\18836\1004951\282529578.v1-7/21/25 Respondent, award the costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees, incurred by Respondents in the defense of this matter, and grant such other and further relief as the Tribunal deems just and proper. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITIONER’S PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, City of Pontiac, by and through its attorneys, Clark Hill PLC, and hereby offers the following Affirmative Defenses to Petitioner’s Petition 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 of relief. 2. Respondent has properly and lawfully classified Petitioner’s property and established its taxable and assessed value in accordance with local ordinances, state regulations, statutory and constitutional requirements. 3. Petitioner may lack the proper authority of the property owner to submit the present appeal, and therefore lacks standing to challenge the subject assessments. 4. Respondent relies upon any and all other affirmative defenses set forth in Michigan Court Rules 2.111 and 2.116 and the Rules of the Michigan Tax Tribunal to the extent such affirmative defenses are established to exist during discovery and the pendency of this matter, and Respondent reserves the right to amend these affirmative defenses upon completion of discovery. Dated: July 21, 2025 Respectfully submitted, CLARK HILL PLC By: Elizabeth White McDonnell (P62561) Sean P. Fitzgerald (P60654) Attorneys for Respondent
Page 4
4 CLARKHILL\18836\1004951\282529578.v1-7/21/25 Dated: July 21, 2025 Respectfully submitted, CLARK HILL PLC By: Elizabeth White McDonnell (P62561) Sean P. Fitzgerald (P60654) Attorneys for Respondent