Answer to Petition_EDL 2026_FINAL.pdf
Energy Developments Byron Center, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Byron Respondent · 26-000639-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ENERGY DEVELOPMENTS BYRON CENTER, LLC, Petitioner, v BYRON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000639 Parcel No. 41-21-89-300-016 _____________________________________________________________________________/ CHRISTIAN E. MEYER (P56037) THOMAS M. AMON (P72351) WARNER NORCROSS + JUDD LLP Attorney for Petitioner 150 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 1500 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 752-2423 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent, Byron Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 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 neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 for the reason that no allegations are set forth and no responsive pleading is required. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 for the reason that no allegations are set forth and no responsive pleading is required. 5. Respondent admits no parcels of personal property have been identified as under appeal.
Page 2
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 2 of 7 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 for the reason that no allegations are set forth and no responsive pleading is required. 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies the applicability of a protest to the Board of Review as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 9. Respondent incorporates and restates its responses to Paragraphs 7 and 8 herein. 10. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 11. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. 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. 14. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2026 tax year but denies any issue with the identified tax year. 15. Respondent admits only the 2026 tax year has been identified as under appeal. 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 $1,334,600 $667,300 $601,103 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $1,334,600 $667,300 $601,103 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $0 $0 $0 19. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested in Paragraph 19 for the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in Respondent’s response to the Motion for Summary Disposition Petitioner filed in MTT Docket no. 23-001174. Furthermore, Respondent’s assessed,
Page 3
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 3 of 7 state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, Respondent’s values and mode of assessment are non- discriminatory and constitutional, and the subject property is required to be taxed to Petitioner in accordance with Act 189 – Taxation of Lessees or Users of Tax-Exempt Property. 20. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 20 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 21. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 21 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 22. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 22 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 23. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 23 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 24. Upon information and belief, Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 24. 25. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 25 as to the identified parcel. 26. Upon information and belief, Respondent admits the identified parcel is more than 260 acres. 27. Respondent admits that based on information and belief there is a lease in place but leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to the terms of that lease as of the relevant tax date. 28. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 28 as of December 31, 2025 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 29. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 29 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 30. Petitioner lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 30 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs as the roll reflects that parcel is tied to Energy Developments Inc and not Petitioner. 31. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 31 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. To the extent Petitioner implies it does not have use of the entirety of the subject parcel, Respondent denies such allegations for the reason that the same are untrue. 32. Respondent admits that the entirety of the subject property is assessable to Petitioner.
Page 4
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 4 of 7 33. Respondent can neither admit nor deny what Petitioner admits but acknowledges said admission. 34. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 for the reason that the same are untrue. 35. Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested in Paragraph 35 for the reasons set forth above. 36. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 for the reason that the same are untrue. Furthermore, Respondent’s assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of proper principles, Respondent’s values and mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional, and the subject property in required to be taxed to Petitioner in accordance with Act 189 – Taxation of Lessees or Users of Tax-Exempt Property. 37. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 for the reason that the same are untrue. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Byron Township, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: July 28, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 5
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 5 of 7 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Byron Township, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 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. 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). 3. 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). 4. 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 Respondent or its agents. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 6. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 7. Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State.
Page 6
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 6 of 7 8. Petitioner, in essence, asks the Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan____________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: July 28, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 7
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 7 of 7 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: Christian E. Meyer Warner Norcross + Judd LLP cmeyer@wnj.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher_________________ Dated: July 28, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher