26-002523.pdf
Seymour Street LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Lansing Respondent · 26-002523-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
RECEIVED JUL 29202 STATE OF MICHIGAN MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SEYMOUR STREET LLC Petitioner v MOAHR Docket 26-002523 Parcel No. 33-01-01-16-130-040 CITY OF LANSING, Respondent Jennifer Hendrix, MMAQO City Assessor 124 W. Michigan Avenue 3rd Floor, City Hall Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 483-4136 Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RESPONDENT, the City of Lansing, through its Assessor, Jennifer Hendrix, hereby responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.
Page 2
MTT Docket # 26-002523 7. 10. 11. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax year. Respondent denies there are any qualified errors or mutual mistake of facts that would grant prior years in this appeal. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for reason that they do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs for prior year jurisdiction. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 for reason that they do not have sufficient knowledge to for a belief as to the truth of the allegations and leaving Petitioner to their strictest proofs. The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value Taxable Value 33-01-01-16-130-040 | $1,261,200 $630,600 $396,968 Respondent contends that the 2026 values for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 33-01-01-16-130-040 | $1,261,200 $630,600 $396,968 The 2026 values in dispute for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value | Assessed Value | Taxable Value 33-01-01-16-130-040 $0 $0 $0 Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 11 for the reason that it is 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 principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are constitutional. Further, the subject property did not have any “additions” or “losses” for the 2026 tax year.
Page 3
MTT Docket # 26-002523 Dated: I [2812 OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR CITY OF LANSING Pr gyedlon Loudeey Jennife T fer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor, City of Lansing 3d Floor, City Hall 124 W Michigan Ave Lansing, Michigan 48933 Telephone: (517) 483-4136 Jennifer.czeiszperger@lansingmi.gov
Page 4
MTT Docket # 26-002523 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent City of Lansing will rely on the following affirmative defenses: A. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against the Respondent and to support Petitioner’s claim for relief. B. The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). C. Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974). D. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, and application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the Respondent or its agents. E. Petitioner fails to allege the mode and method of assessing the subject property failed to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all properties within the Respondent’s taxing unit for the tax year in questions. F. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. G. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% and it also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the subject property’s
Page 5
MTT Docket # 26-002523 IL Petitioner asks this Tribunal to grant it illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that utilized in the assessment of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to the City’s remaining taxpayers. I. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. K. 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. L. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. M. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. WHEREFORE, Respondent denies that the Petitioner is entitled to any relief and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessed and taxable values for the year under appeal be affirmed and the Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that the Respondent be granted all attorney fees and cost wrongfully sustained. OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR Q 7 I” CITY OF LANSING Dated: - No i d oD Oa Y OA NOW euf Jennifer Hendri ix, “MMAO City Assessor, City of Lansing 3d Floor, City Hall 124 W Michigan Ave Lansing, Michigan 48933
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR SEYMOUR STREET LLC ; MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No. 26-002523 CITY OF LANSING Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE JENNIFER HENDRIX, MMAO states that on “7 4 g )7 (rs he/she [Name of person serving/mailing petition] [date of service] served a copy of the ANSWER relative to the above-captioned matter upon: [Provide name and address of the party/people being served] MTT P.O. BOX 30232, LANSING MI 48909 AND NORMAN D SCHINKLE 2683 DONNA DR WILLIAMSTON, MI 48895 um! U awe! nN [Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] JENNIFER HENDRIX, MMAO [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]
Page 7
| CITY OF LANSING ASSESSOR 3RD FLOOR, CITY HALL 124 W. MICHIGAN AVENUE LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933 MTT vHy7 a Fo. Box 3023 a 0 x L- ANSE 11 $ bd gepq Po