Respondent's Answer & Affirmative Defenses to Petitioner's Property Tax Petition.pdf
Mrk Holland Inc. Petitioner Vs. Township Of Holland Respondent · 26-001638-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 TAX TRIBUNAL MRK HOLLAND, INC., Petitioner, Docket No. 26-001638-TT v Parcel No. 70-16-16-181-008 HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. Laura M. Hallahan Bradley J. Fisher (P64608) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. SCHOLTEN FANT Attorney for Petitioner Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 100 N. Third Street Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 Grand Haven, MI 49417 (248) 731-3089 (616) 842-3030 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com bfisher@scholtentant.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, SCHOLTEN FANT, and responds to Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number 70-16-16-181-008 Address 2854 West Shore Classification 201 Comm Imp Use Hotel County Ottawa School Dist West Ottawa Public School District ANSWER: Admitted upon information and belief. 2. N/A. Ifthe Assessment at issue is protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s: _ March, __ July, December, Board of Review ANSWER: n/a
Page 2
3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Admitted. 4, Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Admitted upon information and belief. 5. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 1010 S. Beacon Blvd., Grand Haven, MI 49417-2614 ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. The appeal involves issues related to: X the subject property’s true case and taxable values __ the subject property’s taxable values only there is a dispute as to the value of the addition orloss: __ Yes__ No __ uniformity of the subject property’s assessment ANSWER: Admitted upon information and belief. 7. The tax year at issue is 2026. ANSWER: Admitted upon information and belief. 8. The values established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 70-16-16-181-008 3,542,000 1,771,000 1,771,000 ANSWER: Admitted. 9. Petitioner contends that the values for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 70-16-16-181-008 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
10. The values in dispute are: Parcel Number TCV SEV Tv 70-16-16-181-008 1,542,000 771,00 771,00 ANSWER: Neither admitted nor denied for lack of sufficient knowledge or information as to form a belief and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 11. Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at a higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. ANSWER: Denied as untrue, including all subparts a-d. Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to the reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner its requested relief, affirm Respondent’s assessment of the subject property, award Respondent its costs and attorney's fees in defending this action and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just and equitable.
Page 4
Respectfull itted, SCH F Dated: October 19, 2026 | Bradley JN Fisher (P64608)— Attorneys for Respondent
Page 5
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PETITIONER’S PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES, Respondent, HOLLAND CHARTER TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, SCHOLTEN FANT, and hereby offers the following Affirmative Defenses to the Petitioner’s Property Tax Petition: 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 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. 4. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. 5. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. 6. 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, such that Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and, such that Respondent should be awarded damages. 7. 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 2026 assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, to dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just and equitable. Dated: October 19, 2026 Bradley J. Fisher(P64608) Attorneys for Respondent