Answer Affirmative Defense & POS MTT 26-001477 2026.09.30.pdf

Np Clintonvilla Mhc LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Independence Respondent · 26-001477-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 & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

NP CLINTONVILLA MHC, LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

Case No. 26-001477-TT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parcel ID: J-08-35-426-008 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

Sarah R. Belloli 

Representative for Petitioner 

101 West Big Beaver, Suite 945 

Troy, MI 48084 

(313) 230-0104 

Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com 

THE KELLY FIRM, PLC 

Daniel J. Kelly (P41315) 

Zachary Learman (P71005) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

512 E. 11 Mile Road 

Royal Oak, MI 48067 

(248) 655-7025 

dan@kellyfirmpc.com 

zack@kellyfirmpc.com 

 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION, 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

NOW COMES the Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, by its 

attorneys, THE KELLY FIRM, PLC, and for its answer to the Entire Tribunal Property Tax 

Petition, states as follows: 

1. In response to paragraph 1, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. In response to paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

3. In response to paragraph 3, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs.

4. In response to paragraph 4, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. In response to paragraph 5, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. In response to paragraph 6, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

7. In response to paragraph 7, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

8. In response to paragraph 8, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

9. In response to paragraph 9, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

10. In response to paragraph 10, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

11. In response to paragraph 11, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

12. In response to paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

13. In response to paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

14. In response to paragraph 14, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 

15. In response to paragraph 15, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

16. In response to paragraph 16, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs.

17. In response to paragraph 17, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

18. In response to paragraph 18, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

19. In response to paragraph 19, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

20. In response to paragraph 20, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of 

sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

NOW COMES the Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, by its 

attorneys, THE KELLY FIRM, PLC, and files the following Affirmative Defenses in support of 

its Answer to the Petition: 

1. The facts as alleged by the Petitioner do not establish mutual mistake of fact. 

2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts upon which the mode and 

method of appraising property fails to conform with mode and method applied to all 

other properties in the community. 

3. Petitioner has failed to show that any fact other than fifty percent (50%) was applied 

to the true cash value of the property. 

4. Petitioner’s claim, if prevailed upon, would create a windfall for Petitioner and create 

a burden upon the Township, schools, County taxes, and other property owners in the 

community.

5. Petitioner is asking this Honorable Tribunal to make an underassessment based upon 

an arbitrary basis. 

6. A levy of all taxes is required to be made based upon the assessment of fifty percent 

(50%) of true cash value as ultimately determined by the process of County and State 

equalization. 

7. Respondent reserves the right to file additional Affirmative Defenses as may become 

apparent in this case. 

 

Dated: September 30, 2026 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Zachary Learman 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zachary Learman (P71005) 

The Kelly Firm, PLC 

Attorneys for the Township of Independence 

512 E. 11 Mile Road 

Royal Oak, MI 48067 

(248) 655-7025 

 

 

 

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

 

The undersigned states that on September 30, 2026, she electronically filed Respondent's 

Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service with the Michigan Tax 

Tribunal via the Tribunal's E-filing System and served a copy upon Representative for Petitioner 

via electronic mail to Petitioner’s address at Sarah.Belloli@Ryan.com. 

 

/s/ Julian Slavsky 

 

 

Julian Slavsky

← View full record