Answer to Petition.pdf
Bc Equities LP, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek, Respondent · 25-001696-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL BC Equities LP, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-001696 v. Parcel No. 0253-00-037-1 City of Battle Creek, Respondent. HONIGMAN LLP Daniel L. Stanley Attorney for Petitioner 222 North Washington Square, Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933-1800 (517) 377-0714 dstanley@honigman.com CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) Attorney for Respondent 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014 (269) 966-3385 cmstoetzel@battlecreekmi.gov ANSWER TO PETITION and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER NOW COMES RESPONDENT, City of Battle Creek, by and through its attorneys, and in answer to Petitioners’ Petition responds as follows: 1. Petitioner’s principal office address is 750 Trade Center Way, Suite 1000, Portage, MI 48002. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel no(s). 0253-00-037-1 (“Petitioner’s Property”), at 67 W. Michigan Avenue located in Calhoun County, Michigan. If this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the tax parcels are contiguous. ANSWER: Respondent admits the parcel number is correct. Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent, Battle Creek, assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner’s Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 2 of its Petition.
Page 2
2 3. In 2025, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner’s Property to be $2,523,376 and assessed Petitioner’s Property at $3,205,900, which will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 3 of its Petition. 4. Petitioner’s Property is classified as Commercial Real. Petitioner’s Property is presently used or available for use for Office purposes. Petitioner believes that Petitioner’s Property was originally designed to be used for Office purposes. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 4 of its Petition. 5. This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) uniformity. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies what Petitioner alleges in Paragraph 5 of its Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative to the value of a loss. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies what Petitioner alleges in Paragraph 6 of its Petition. Respondent states further that no loss has been reported to the Assessor’s office. 7. If P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest for Petitioner’s Property, a board of review protest was filed in March, 2025. ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s allegation in Paragraph 7 of its Petition. 8. The 2025 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on Petitioner’s Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: (a) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 8(a) of its Petition. (b) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 8(b) of its Petition.
Page 3
3 (c) The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are based upon an erroneous determination of the 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, ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 8(c) of its Petition. (d) The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies as untrue Petitioner’s allegations in Paragraph 8(d) of its Petition. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal: (a) Deny Petitioner’s requests; (b) Uphold or increase the values assessed by Respondent; and (c) Order such other and further relief as this Honorable Tribunal deems just and/or equitable. Dated: July 02, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III________ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) Attorney for Respondent 10 North Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014 (269) 966-3385
Page 4
4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent City of Battle Creek asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 2. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3. Petitioner lacks standing. 4. There are no genuine issues of material fact and Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 5. Petitioner’s claims must fail due to the fact that they are devoid of arguable legal merit. 6. Petitioner’s claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitation. 7. Respondent reserves the right to amend or supplement these Affirmative Defenses as facts are learned through the discovery process or otherwise. Dated: July 02, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ C. Marcel Stoetzel, III________ By: C. Marcel Stoetzel, III (P61912) Attorney for Respondent 10 N. Division Street, Suite 216 Battle Creek, MI 49014 (269) 966-3385