Kroger Co of Michigan 26-001445 Answer to Petition 9-22-26.pdf
The Kroger Co Of Michigan Petitioner Vs. Township Of Pittsfield Respondent · 26-001445-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
1 S E C R E S T W A R D L E STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL THE KROGER CO OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 26-001445 -vs- PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________________________/ DUCHARME, MCMILLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Michelle M. Silvey (P69494) Attorney for Petitioner 9229 Delegates Row Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 (317) 596-3260 Ext. 2404 (917) 488-7825 msilvey@dmainc.com SECREST WARDLE Alana A. Knox (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 aknox@secrestwardle.com _________________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONER’S ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, SECREST WARDLE, and for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states as follows: 1. Answering paragraph 1, Respondent admits that the subject property under appeal is identified as tax identification number L-12-11-150-037. 2. Answering paragraph 2, Respondent admits that the parcel identified as tax identification number L-12-11-150-037 is real property. 3. Answering paragraph 3, Respondent admits that the only parcel under appeal is the parcel identified as tax identification number L-12-11-150-037.
Page 2
2 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 4. Answering paragraph 4, Respondent admits the same. Respondent neither admits nor denies the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Answering paragraph 5, Respondent admits that the parcel identified as tax identification number L-12-11-150-037 is 201 Commercial-Improved property. 6. Answering paragraph 6, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 6 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 7. Answering paragraph 7, Respondent admits that the parcel identified as tax identification number L-12-11-150-037 is located in Washtenaw County. 8. Answering paragraph 8, Respondent admits that the parcel identified as tax identification number L-12-11-150-037 has a property address of 3200 Carpenter Rd., Ypsilanti, MI 48197. 9. Answering paragraph 9, Respondent admits the same. 10. Answering paragraph 10, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 11. Answering paragraph 11, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 12. Answering paragraph 12, Respondent admits that the tax year at issue is 2026. 13. Answering paragraph 13, Respondent admits that the subject property’s 2026 true cash, assessed and taxable values on the Respondent’s assessment roll are as follows:
Page 3
3 S E C R E S T W A R D L E TAX YEAR TRUE CASH VALUE ASSESSED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE 2026 $7,006,624 $3,503,312 $3,265,398 which assessed value will result in a state equalized value in the same amount based upon the tentative equalization factor. 14. Answering paragraph 14, Respondent denies that the subject property’s 2026 true cash, state equalized and taxable values on the Respondent’s assessment roll should be: TAX YEAR TRUE CASH VALUE STATE EQUALIZED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE 2026 $4,472,000 $2,236,000 $2,236,000 15. Answering paragraph 15, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 15 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 16. Answering paragraph 16 and its subparts (a), (b), (c) and (d), Respondent denies the allegations contained therein for the reason that the same are untrue. WHEREFORE, Respondent, PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessments and taxable values of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred.
Page 4
4 S E C R E S T W A R D L E Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 Dated: September 22, 2026 (248) 851-9500 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For its further Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent respectfully requests unto this Honorable Tribunal as follows: 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. Petitioner fails 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. 3. Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. Petitioner fails 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 also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper.
Page 5
5 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 6. Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive at the respective equalized assessments. 7. Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment 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. Petitioner failed to allege to the Board of Review that: 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 Township, 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. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent’s Board of Review 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.
Page 6
6 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent, PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased and that Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 Dated: September 22, 2026 (248) 851-9500 PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 22, 2026, a copy of the foregoing document, Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Petition and Affirmative Defenses, was filed electronically with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, and was served upon: Ducharme, McMillen & Associates, Inc. Michelle M. Silvey, Esq. 9229 Delegates Row Suite 375 Indianapolis, IN 46240 by depositing same in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon. /s/ Tamera Briggs Tamera Briggs (11017915.1)