C & C Rinke Answer to Petition.pdf
C & C Rinke LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Bruce Respondent · 26-000804-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 CONSUMER & INDUSTRY SERVICES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL C & CRINKE, LLC Petitioner, -Vs- MTT Docket No. 26-000804 BRUCE TOWNSHIP, Respondent. / SARAH R. BELLOLI CHRISTINE D. ANDERSON (P45141) MATTHEW DINGMAN SEIBERT AND DLOSKI, PLLC JOAN KLEINER Attorney for Respondent Representative for Petitioner 19500 Hall Road, Suite 101 101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 Clinton Township, MI 48038 Troy, MI 48084 (586) 469-3800 313-230-0104 canderson@seibertanddloski.com Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com Matthew.Dinagman@Ryan.com Joan.Kleiner@Ryan.com BRUCE TOWNSHIP’S ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION The Township of Bruce (“Respondent”), by and through its attorneys, SEIBERT AND DLOSKI, PLLC, for its answer to Petitioner's Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition states as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 3. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 3, therefore, no
Page 2
5. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 5, therefore, no response is required. 6. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 8. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 8, therefore, no response is required. 9. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 9, therefore, no response is required. 10. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. 11. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. 13. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. 14. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14. 15. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 15, therefore, no response is required. 16. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16. 17. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17.
Page 3
20.
Respondent denies that the assessment imposed upon the subject property
is more than 50%
of
its true cash
value
in
violation
of the applicable
statutory and
constitutional limitations for the reason
it is untrue and further denies that the assessment
is not uniform with comparable properties for the reason
it is untrue.
Respondent further
states that the subject parcel has been lawfully and uniformly assessed for the 2026 tax
year.
WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests the Tax Tribunal dismiss the
Petition and award the Respondent its costs and attorney fees.
Respectfully submitted,
SEIBERT AND DLOSKI, PLLC
(Mh
{VM NTF
\—
By:
Christine D. Anderson (P45141)
Attorney for Respondent
19500 Hall Road, Suite 101
Clinton Township, MI 48038
Dated: June 24, 2026
(586) 469-3800