Answer_Eden 25_FINAL.pdf

Eden Street LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Chesaning, Respondent · 25-001875-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 

 

 

EDEN STREET LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

TOWNSHIP OF CHESANING, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

Docket No. 25-001875 

Parcel No. 13-09-3-10-1403-006 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

AARON M. FALES (P72864) 

LAW OFFICE OF AARON M. FALES, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

330 Hamilton Row, Suite 350 

Birmingham, MI 48009 

(248) 767-9840 

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, Township of Chesaning, 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 as to property type, parcel 

number, and parcel location. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to 

respond to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner 

to its proofs. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.

Page 2

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 for the reason the same are untrue.

For the 2025 tax year the subject property was determined to have a taxable value of $2,183,864

and an assessed value of $ 2,279,000.

Respondent admits only that the subject property is classified as Industrial real

property but denies the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 as untrue.

Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 for the reason

that General Property Tax Act, the Tax Tribunal Act, and other Michigan law speak for themselves.

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner but denies said issues

have merit and denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to a dispute relative to the value of

a loss but denies any such loss has occurred.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, including subparagraphs (a)-(d),

for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the subject property does not qualify for

exemption; 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 non-discriminatory and constitutional.

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in

the above Paragraphs.

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Township of Chesaning, 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.

Page 3

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: October 9, 2025

(248) 731-3089

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent, Township of Chesaning, asserts the following affirmative defenses:

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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

Page 4

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.

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.

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.

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_____________