Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses - Clio Shopping Center v Vienna Twp 26-001317.pdf
Clio Shopping Center LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Vienna Respondent · 26-001317-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________ CLIO SHOPPING CENTER LLC, Petitioner, v. VIENNA TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001317 PPNS: 18-23-200-018 18-23-200-019 ______________________________________________________________________________ Steve Johnson Petitioner’s Authorized Representative 436 N Center St. Northville, MI 48167 (248) 392-4342 info@mitaxappeal.com 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 ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Vienna Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. Property Parcel No: See Multiple Parcel Form. ANSWER: Paragraph 1 contains no allegations of fact to which a response is required. 2. The property identified above is _X_ real __ personal. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. 3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? _X_ Yes __ No. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition.
Page 2
4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? __ Yes _X_ No. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 4 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements filed by parcel number? N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 5 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 6. The property identified above is classified as Commercial. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s _ March _ July _ December Board of Review. ANSWER: Paragraph 7 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue: N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 8 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue. N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 9 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required.
Page 3
10. The property or properties at issue are located in Genesee County. The property or properties’ address is: 2100 W Vienna Rd and 2135 W Vienna Rd, Clio, MI 48420. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the: Township of Vienna. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition. 12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 5550 Hampshire Dr, West Bloomfield, MI 48322. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. This appeal involves issues relating to: the property or properties’ true cash and taxable values. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 13 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 14 of the Petition. 15. If more than the current tax year is being appealed, list the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the prior tax year or years: N/A ANSWER: Paragraph 15 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 See Multiple Parcel Form
Page 4
ANSWER: Paragraph 16 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. 17. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 See Multiple Parcel Form ANSWER: Paragraph 17 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 See Multiple Parcel Form ANSWER: Paragraph 18 contains no factual allegations to which a response is required. 19. Petitioner requests the following relief: Petitioner requests that the Tribunal reduce the assessed, state equalized, and taxable values as indicated on the attached multiple parcel form, and order a refund with interest as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. ANSWER: Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested in paragraph 19 of the Petition. 20. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested: Our initial review of the subject properties indicate the assessment exceeds 50% of the true cash value. ANSWER: To the extent that Paragraph 20 contains any factual allegations, Respondent denies the allegations as untrue and erroneous.
Page 5
MULTIPLE PARCEL PETITION FORM 1 OF 1 1. The classification of the property identified herein as established by Respondent’s Board of Review is: Tax Year Parcel Number Real/Personal Classification 2026 18-23-200-019 Real Commercial 2026 18-23-200-018 Real Commercial ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Multiple Parcel Petition Form. 2. The values for the property identified herein as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 18-23-200-019 4,161,000 2,080,500 2,045,295 2026 18-23-200-018 287,400 143,700 143,700 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Multiple Parcel Petition Form.
Page 6
3. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified herein are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 18-23-200-019 1,750,000 875,000 875,000 2026 18-23-200-018 100,000 50,000 50,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Multiple Parcel Petition Form as being untrue and erroneous. 4. The values in dispute for the property identified herein are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 18-23-200-019 2,411,000 1,205,500 1,170,295 2026 18-23-200-018 187,400 93,700 93,700 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Multiple Parcel Petition Form as untrue as the values contended by Petitioner are inaccurate.
Page 7
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Vienna Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its 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 provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing. b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. c. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. d. 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). 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
Page 8
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: October 16, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 90887:00001:203160491-1