Answer to Petition.pdf
Automobile Dealers Accessory Corporation Of Michigan Petitioner Vs. City Of East Lansing Respondent · 26-001019-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 Automobile Dealers Accessory Corporation of Michigan, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001019 -vs- Parcel No. 33-20-02-07-107-030 CITY OF EAST LANSING, Respondent. COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Joshua T. Shillair (P72674) Representative for Petitioner 400 W 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 226-1632 Joshua.Shillair@Colliers.com Karen.Cameron@Colliers.com ROSATI, SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. Debra A. Walling (P37067) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3554 (248) 489-4100 dwalling@rsjalaw.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, CITY OF EAST LANSING, by and through its Attorneys, ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER PC, and for its Answer to Petitioner's Petition, states as follows: 1. As to Paragraph 1, 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. 2. As to Paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 3. As to Paragraph 3, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein.
Page 2
2 4. As to Paragraph 4, Respondent admits that the subject property is Commercial Real Property. Respondent neither admits nor denies Petitioner’s beliefs, lacking knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Petitioner’s beliefs. 5. As to Paragraph 5, Respondent denies the allegation contained therein for the reason that the allegation is untrue. Petitioner filed an allowable letter appeal dated February 27, 2026. 6. As to Paragraph 6, Respondent admits the allegation contained therein. 7. As to Paragraph 7, 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. 8. As to Paragraph 8, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 9. As to Paragraph 9, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 10. As to Paragraph 10, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein including the allegations contained in subparagraphs a through d, for the reason that the allegations are untrue. 11. As to Paragraph 11, Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason that the allegations are untrue, and therefore leaves Petitioner to its burden of proof. 12. As to Paragraph 12, Respondent denies the allegation for the reason that the value in contention is merely Petitioner’s mathematical calculation based upon a currently unsupported contention of market value ($550,000). 13. As to Paragraph 13, Respondent denies the allegation for the reason that the value in contention is merely a mathematical calculation based upon a currently unsupported contention of market value ($550,000).
Page 3
3 WHEREFORE, Respondent, CITY OF EAST LANSING, requests the that 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. ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, PC /s/ Debra A. Walling DEBRA A. WALLING (P37067) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 489-4100 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, CITY OF EAST LANSING, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 1. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 2. 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 the Respondent or its agents. 3. 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. 4. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and has also failed
Page 4
4 to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable value is improper. 6. Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than 50% was applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others, to arrive at the respective assessments appearing on the roll. 7. 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 the Respondent's taxing unit. 8. 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. 9. If Petitioner appeared at the Board of Review, Petitioner failed in its appearance before the Board of Review to specifically allege: a. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. b. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the City of East Lansing, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. c. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. d. Sufficient evidence to enable the Board of Review to make a decision. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent's Board of Review, if a Board of
Page 5
5 Review appearance was required, constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to Respondent's Board of Review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 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. Respondent objects to the extent Petitioner lacks standing to bring this Petition. 13. Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. ROSATI SCHULTZ JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, PC /s/ Debra A. Walling DEBRA A. WALLING (P37067) Attorney for Respondent 27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 489-4100 Dated: August 14, 2026 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys/parties of record herein at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleadings on August 14, 2026. BY: U.S. Mail Telefacsimile Hand Delivered Overnight courier Federal Express Other: Email Signature: /s/ Sheila Bodenbach