Answer to Petition 26-000617.pdf

Dev Ht9 LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Portage, Respondent · 26-000617-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

DEV HT9, LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Portage, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000617 

Parcel No. 39-10-00003-090-B 

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

BRANDI LINTZ 

Representative for Petitioner 

16915 Cleveland Road 

Granger, Indiana 46530 

(574) 277-8877 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent City of Portage, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Amended Petition as follows: 

1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations from Paragraph 3 as no claim is made. 

4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations from Paragraph 4 as no claim is made.

5. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations from Paragraph 5 as no claim is made. 

6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 

7. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations from Paragraph 8 as no claim is made. 

9. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations from Paragraph 9 as no claim is made. 

10. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 

11. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11. 

12. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 12 

and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

13. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief that there exists a dispute relative to the 

Subject Property’s valuation but denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and further 

denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

14. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 14. 

15. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations from Paragraph 15 as no claim is 

made. 

16. For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment for 

property taxes as follows: 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

$5,010,600 

$2,505,300 

$2,116,364 

 

17. Respondent contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2026 tax 

year is: 

 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

$5,010,600 

$2,505,300 

$2,116,364

18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: 

 

True Cash Value 

Assessed Value 

Taxable Value 

$0 

$0 

$0 

 

19. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in Paragraph 19, but denies 

that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above 

Paragraphs. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed 

permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for 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. 

20. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 as to the values being overstated as they 

are not. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 20. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Portage requests 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. 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

 

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin____________ 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Date: May 12, 2026

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent City of Portage 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. Alhi 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. 

5. 

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. 

6. 

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was 

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, as well as all others, to arrive at the 

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to support its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper. 

7. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen 

method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State.

8. 

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 Respondent’s taxing unit. 

9. 

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. 

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. 

Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 

13. 

Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same 

may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. 

 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

 

 

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin____________ 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Seth A. O’Loughlin (P80257) 

Kelsea M. Melcher (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Date: May 12, 2026

PROOF OF MAILING 

 

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

and Affirmative Defenses to: 

 

Brandi Lintz 

blintz@driveandshine.com 

 

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

 

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin__________ 

Dated: May 12, 2026 

Seth A. O’Loughlin

← View full record