25-002394.pdf

Sams Real Estate Business Trust, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek, Respondent · 25-002394-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

RECEIVED 

AUG 12 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SAM’S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST, 

Petitioner, 

Docket No. 25-002394 

v 

CITY OF BATTLE CREEK, 

Respondent. 

/ 

MICHAEL B. SHAPIRO (P20282) 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) 

SETH A. O'LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

660 Woodward Avenue 

Attorneys for Respondent 

2290 First National Building 

1750 8. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Detroit, MI 48226-3506 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(313) 465-7622 

(248) 731-3089 

/ 

ANSWER TO SEVERED PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

ANSWER 

Respondent, City of Battle Creek, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, 

P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. 

Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the 

allegations in Paragraph 

1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

4. 

Respondent admits that subject property is classified as commercial real property. 

© With respect 

to the remaining allegations 

in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies 

that Petitioner’s claims have merit. 

6. 

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

loss but denies such a loss has occurred. 

7. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 7 for the reason 

that no assertion was made. In further answer, Petitioner only sets forth a hypothetical condition 

(i.e., “if P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest 

. 

. .) but then fails to state whether or 

not a protest was made. 

8. 

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

for the reason that the same are untrue. 

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 non-discriminatory and 

constitutional. 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

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

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Battle Creek, requests the Tribunal dismiss the 

Severed Petition, affirm Respondents 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: August 5, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, City of Battle Creek, 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. Alki 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.

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 

Date: August 5, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

PROOF OF MAILING 

On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Severed 

Petition and Affirmative Defenses to: 

Michael B. Shapiro, Esq. 

mshapiro@honigman.com 

Daniel L. Stanley, Esq. 

dstanley@honigman.com 

I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

/s/Kelsea M. Melcher 

Dated: August 5, 2025 

Kelsea M. Melcher

ge—

HALLAHAR 

I 

SRO@nmRy piglet lilt 

: 

i 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

US PFI

0635

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P:0. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909

← View full record