Answer and AD.pdf
Romulus Development LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Sterling Heights, Respondent · 24-004182-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 ROMULUS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Petitioner, v Docket No. 24-004182 Parcel No. 10-10-17-476-029 CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS, Respondent. LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) Hallahan & Associates. P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Rd., Ste. 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com MARC D. KASZUBSKI (P60333) O’Reilly Rancilio P.C. Attorney for Respondent 12900 Hall Road, Suite 350 Sterling Heights, MI 48313-1151 (586) 726-1000 mkaszubski@orlaw.com ANSWER TO PETITION Respondent, CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS (“Respondent”), submits the following as its Answer to the Petition in this matter: 1. Admit. 2. No response required. 3. Admit. 4. Neither admit nor deny as Respondent is without sufficient information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted. 5. Neither admit nor deny as Respondent is without sufficient information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted.
Page 2
2 6. Neither admit nor deny as Respondent is without sufficient information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted. 7. Admit. 8. Admit. 9. Denied as untrue. 10. Denied as untrue. 11. a.-e. Denied as untrue. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition with prejudice and on the merits and further award Respondent any and all other relief in its favor as is deemed just and appropriate under the circumstances. O’REILLY RANCILIO P.C. By: /s/ Marc D. Kaszubski Marc D. Kaszubski (P60333) Attorney for Respondent Dated: January 16, 2025 RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES, Respondent, CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS, by and through its attorneys, O’REILLY RANCILIO P.C. and states for its Affirmative Defenses as follows: 1. Petitioner lacks an interest in the property or standing to bring this action. 2. The Petition is improper because of untimely filing and statute of limitations. 3. Lack of jurisdiction. 4. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel. 5. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support a cause of action against Respondent.
Page 3
3 6. The Petition is improper because it asks this Tribunal to grant a preference by application of a self-chosen method of assessment contrary to the laws of the State of Michigan. 7. The Petition is improper because its effect would be to shift the burden of the city, school and county taxes to other property owners within the City of Sterling Heights. 8. Petitioner has failed to join any and all claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence subject to this action. 9. Respondent reserves the right to raise any additional affirmative defenses as they arise during the pendency of this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition with prejudice and on the merits and further award Respondent any and all other relief in its favor as is deemed just and appropriate under the circumstances. O’REILLY RANCILIO P.C. By: /s/ Marc D. Kaszubski Marc D. Kaszubski (P60333) Attorney for Respondent Dated: January 16, 2025
Page 4
4 PROOF OF SERVICE I served Respondent’s Answer to Petition and Affirmative Defenses upon the attorneys of record and/or parties in this case on January 16, 2025. I declare the foregoing statement to be true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. U.S. Mail Fax Hand Delivered Messenger Express Mail Private Other: /s/ Teresa A. Walsh Teresa A. Walsh