Full record / Hillsdale - Hillsdale Capital Management Appearance of TK and Answer with Affirmative Defenses 9-21-26.pdf

Hillsdale - Hillsdale Capital Management Appearance of TK and Answer with Affirmative Defenses 9-21-26.pdf

Hillsdale Capital Management LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Hillsdale Respondent · 26-001221-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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

HILLSDALE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

LLC., 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF HILLSDALE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001221 

 

Parcel Nos.: 30-006-222-101-01 

 

30-006-015-300-07 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ 

 

 

 

 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

Attorneys For Petitioner 

1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

 

Toby Koenig (P72367) 

BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

(616) 965-9340 

toby@bloomsluggett.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S APPEARANCE 

NOW COMES attorney Toby Koenig, of the law firm of Bloom Sluggett, PC, and 

hereby enters his appearance on behalf of Respondent City of Hillsdale in this matter. 

 

 

 

Dated: September 21, 2026 

Respectfully submitted by, 

BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

 

/s/ Toby Koenig 

 

 

 

 

Toby Koenig (P72367) 

Attorneys for Respondents City of Hillsdale 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Tonya Voakes, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is employed by Bloom 

Sluggett, PC, and that on September 21, 2026, she served a copy of Respondent’s Appearance, 

Answer to Petition and Proof of Service by e-mail and First-Class Mail upon Thomas K. Dillon 

at: tdillon@fosterswift.com and to Foster Swift Collins & Smith, PC, 1700 East Beltline Ave. 

NE, Suite 200, Grand Rapids, MI 49525. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Tonya Voakes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Tonya Voakes

Page 2

1 

 

4937-3938-6834, v. 1 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

HILLSDALE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 

LLC., 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

CITY OF HILLSDALE, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001221 

 

Parcel Nos.: 30-006-222-101-01 

 

30-006-015-300-07 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ 

 

 

 

 

Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 

FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

1700 East Beltline Ave NE, Suite 200 

Grand Rapids, MI 49525 

(616) 726-2258 

tdillon@fosterswift.com 

 

Toby Koenig (P72367) 

BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

161 Ottawa Ave NW, Suite 400 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

(616) 965-9340 

toby@bloomsluggett.com 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/ 

 

 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent City of Hillsdale, through its counsel, hereby submits the following Answer to 

Petition and Affirmative Defenses. 

1. Respondent admits the property parcel numbers as alleged in Paragraph 1. 

2. Respondent admits that the subject property is real property as alleged in Paragraph 2. 

3. Respondent admits that the parcels at issue are contiguous as alleged in Paragraph 3. 

4. There are no allegations in Paragraph 4 of the petition. 

5. There are no allegations in Paragraph 5 of the petition. 

6. Respondent admits that the subject parcels are classified as 201 Commercial Improved and 

202 Commercial Vacant. 

 

7. Respondent admits that Petitioner protested the 2026 assessment to the March Board of 

Review.

Page 3

2 

 

4937-3938-6834, v. 1 

 

8. The allegation in Paragraph 8 merely restates the allegation in Paragraph 7 and therefore 

no response is required. 

 

9. There are no allegations in Paragraph 9 of the petition. 

10. Respondent admits that the subject parcels are located in Hillsdale County and admits that 

the addresses of the subject parcels are 501 W. Carleton Rd. and 3003 W. Carleton Rd., 

Hillsdale, MI 48242. 

 

11. Respondent admits that it established the assessments for the subject property. 

12. Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to where 

Petitioner maintains its principal legal residence or office address and therefore leaves 

Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

13. Paragraph 13 merely restates Petitioner’s claim and therefore no response is required; 

Respondent denies that the subject properties were improperly assessed, denies that there 

are issues involving uniformity, and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

 

14. Respondent admits that 2026 is the tax year at issue in this appeal. 

15. There are no allegations in Paragraph 15 of the petition. 

 

16. Respondent admits the values alleged in Paragraph 16 are the values established by 

Respondent’s Board of Review. 

 

17. Respondent denies that the values alleged by Petitioner in Paragraph 17 accurately reflect 

the subject property’s true cash, state equalized, and taxable values. 

 

18. Respondent admits that Petitioner alleges the values in dispute as set forth in Paragraph 18; 

however, Respondent denies that the subject property is improperly assessed and further 

denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

 

19. Paragraph 19 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required; Respondent 

otherwise denies the allegations and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss Petitioner’s appeal with 

prejudice, and award Respondent its costs, attorney fees, and all such further and additional relief 

as this Tribunal may deem appropriate. 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Page 4

3 

 

4937-3938-6834, v. 1 

2. Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because the valuation methods used 

by Respondent comply with the Constitution, state law, and prevailing State Tax Commission 

procedures. 

 

3. Respondent’s assessment reflects 50% of the subject property’s true cash value, and 

the values on the roll, including the taxable value, comply with the GPTA. 

 

4. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support standing to bring this appeal or that it is 

a proper party-in-interest. 

 

5. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support its allegation that the taxable value of the 

subject property is improper. 

 

6. 

Respondent reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they may 

become known through discovery. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: September 21, 2026 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

 

/s/ Toby Koenig 

 

 

 

Toby Koenig (P72367) 

Attorney for Respondent 

161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 400 

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 

(616) 965-9340

PDF reading copy

← View full record