26-000571.pdf
Fh Hotels Inc Petitioner Vs. City Of Farmington Hills Respondent · 26-000571-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 AUG 24 2026 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS IGAN TAX TRiguna, MICHIGAN OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND RULES MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL FH HOTELS INC Petitioner : v : MOAHR Docket 26-000571-TT - Parcel No. 22-23-14-101-039 CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS, Respondent Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Farmington Hills, MI 48336 (248) 871-2479 jhendrix@fhgov.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RESPONDENT, the City of Farmington Hills, through its Assessor, Jennifer Hendrix, hereby responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Asto Paragraph 1, Respondent admits the allegations. 2. As to Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations. 3. As to Paragraph 3, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 4. As to Paragraph 4, no response is required as no allegations have been made. 5. As to Paragraph 5, no response is required as no allegations have been made.
Page 2
MTT Docket # 26-000571 8. 9. 10. il. 12. 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. As to Paragraph 8, no response is required as no allegations have been made. No March Board of Review was filed. As to Paragraph 9, no response is required as no allegations have been made. As to Paragraph 10, Respondent admits the allegations. As to Paragraph 11, Respondent admits the allegations. As to Paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained therein, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. The mailing address of record is 994 Saint James Park Ave, Monroe, MI 48161. As to Paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations. 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 and leaves Petitioner to their strictest proofs. As to Paragraph 14, Respondent admits the allegations. As to Paragraph 15, no response is required as no allegations have been made. As to Paragraph 16, Respondent admits the allegations. 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 22-23-15-201-270 $5,120,780 $2,560,390 $2,560,390 As to paragraph 17, Respondent denies that Petitioner's values for the subject property are accurate or frue. As to Paragraph 18, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained
Page 3
MTT Docket # 26-000571 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, and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS respectfully requests that this Honorable 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. OFFICE OF THE CITY ASSESSOR Dated: 5 J 27 TE OF Ns dos = pe MMAO City Assessor, Farmington Hills 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd Farmington Hills, MI 48336 (248) 871-2479 jhendrix@fhgov.com
Page 4
MTT Docket # 26-000571 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Respondent CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS will rely on the following affirmative defenses: 1. 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, 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 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. 5. 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’ taxing unit for the tax year in questions. 6. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts needed to establish the true cash value, assessed and taxable value for the subject property. 7. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the assessed value of the subject propetty, 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 # 26-000571 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add affirmative defenses which may become known during the course of informal or formal discovery proceedings. 14. Respondent objects to the extent Petitioner lacks standing to bring this Petition. 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 CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS Dated: Shjz¢ Lad Loli Jennifer Hendrix, MMAO City Assessor, Farmington Hills 31555 West Eleven Mile Rd
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LAINE DIRECTOR FH HOTELS INC , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No. 26-000571 CITY OF FARMINGTON HILLS , Respondent(s) PROOF OF SERVICE JENNIFER HENDRIX states that on AUGUST 11, 2026 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 PETER ELLENSON 30500 NORTHWESTERN HWY, STE 500 FARMINGTON HILLS, MI 48334 Li will ny [Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] JENNIFER HENDRIX, MMAO [Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy]
Page 7
Aor ii MN I= ne ] = u / Cle no [hl ) [ HZ AL 2 ls | / // P / / 2k = 4 / DN RAW. J ~—— L