Rsvl - Pacific PETC Answer Affirm Defs & POS.pdf
Pacific Petc-Roseville, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Roseville Respondent · 26-000971-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 PACIFIC PETC-ROSEVILLE, LLC, Petitioner, vs. MTT Docket No. 26-00971 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Respondent. Sarah R. Belloli Timothy D. Tomlinson (P48519) Matthew Dingman Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC Ryan, LLC 22600 Hall Rd, Ste. 102 Representatives for Petitioner Clinton Township, MI 48036 101 West Big Beaver Rd, Ste 945 586-263-5050 Troy, MI 48084 ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com 313-230-0104 Sarah. belloli@ryan.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC, and in answer to Petitioner=s Petition, states as follows: 1. Respondent admits paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits paragraph 2. 3. Not applicable. 4. Not applicable. 5. Not applicable. 6. Respondent admits paragraph 6. 7. Respondent admits paragraph 7. 8. Not applicable. 9. Not applicable.
Page 2
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1s.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Respondent admits paragraph 10.
Respondent admits paragraph 11.
Respondent neither admits nor denies paragraph 12 being without sufficient
information to form a reasonable belief thereto.
Respondent denies paragraph 13 because it is untrue.
Respondent admits paragraph 14.
Not applicable.
Respondent admits paragraph 16.
Respondent denies paragraph 17 because it is untrue.
Respondent denies paragraph 18 because it is untrue.
Respondent denies paragraph 19 because it is untrue.
Respondent denies paragraph 20 because it is untrue.
A.
Respondent denies paragraph A because it is untrue.
B.
Respondent denies paragraph B because it is untrue.
WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss
the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees
wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter.
By: {"} Overnight
Courie
[3 Hand Dejidered
Mail
Respectfully submitted,
TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC
/s/Timothy D. Tomlinson
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Timothy D. Tomlinson (P48519)
~4 cartfiies that the foregoing inci
VE
22600 Hall Rd, Ste. 102
Clinton Township, MI 48036
586-263-5050
ttomlinson@ttlmlaw.com
Dated: August 27, 2026Page 3
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL PACIFIC PETC-ROSEVILLE, LLC, Petitioner, vs. MTT Docket No. 26-00971 CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Respondent. Sarah R. Belloli Timothy D. Tomlinson (P48519) Matthew Dingman Tomlinson & McGrail, PLLC Ryan, LLC 22600 Hall Rd, Ste. 102 Representatives for Petitioner Clinton Township, MI 48036 101 West Big Beaver Rd, Ste 945 586-263-5050 Troy, MI 48084 ttomlinson@ttimlaw.com 313-230-0104 Sarah.belloli@ryan.com RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES the Respondent, City of Roseville, by and through its attorneys, York, Dolan & Tomlinson, P.C., and for its Affirmative Defenses, states 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, the 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 to the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.
Page 4
10. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 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 is allegations that that the property’s taxable value is improper. 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. 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 of other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and state equalization as to the which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. Any decrease in the value of Petitioners property was a result of its own intentional acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
Page 5
11. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition, affirm the values as determined by Respondent, and award costs and attorney fees wrongfully incurred in having to defend this matter. Respectfully submitted, TOMLINSON & McGRAIL, PLLC /s/Timothy D. Tomlinson Timothy D. Tomlinson (P48519) 22600 Hall Rd, Ste. 102 Clinton Township, MI 48036 586-263-5050 ttomlinson@ttimlaw.com Dated: August 27, 2026 = |CATE OF SERVICE OE ites that the eat aries to the above causa to eacn of py pra a iclosed nL) pe] ~ hh ad i | t i | i i |