answer to petition.pdf
Groesbeck Cp & Mp Investments LLC, Roseville Investment Holding LLC Petitioners Vs. City Of Fraser Respondent · 26-002524-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 Groesbeck CP & MP Investments LLC & Roseville Investment Holding LLC, Petitioner, vs. City of Fraser, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-002524 _____________________________________________________________________________/ CLARK PATTAH Representative for Petitioner 2207 Orchard Lake Road Sylvan Lake, MI 48320-1786 (248) 939-1400 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, MI 48302 (248) 731-3089 _____________________________________________________________________________/ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ANSWER Respondent City of Fraser, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 as to the parcel number, address, classification, County, and school district. 2. Respondent admits that no Board of Review protest was made. 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. 4. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 4 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 2 of 5 5. Respondent lacks the information necessary to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 5 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal, but denies that those issues have merit and also denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 7. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7. 8. The 2026 values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $6,861,600 $3,430,800 $2,976,919 9. Respondent contends that the 2026 values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $6,861,600 $3,430,800 $2,976,919 10. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $8,875,600 $4,437,800 $4,162,953 11. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested in Paragraph 11, including all subparagraphs, for the reason that Petitioner’s amounts do not reflect the accurate valuations for this property. 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 principals, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. WHEREFORE, Respondent City of Fraser 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.
Page 3
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 3 of 5 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Seth O’Loughlin______________ SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: September 18, 2026 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent City of Fraser 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.
Page 4
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 4 of 5 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.
Page 5
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 5 of 5 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Seth O’Loughlin______________ SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: September 18, 2026 (248) 731-3089 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: Clark Pattah clark@pattahdevelopment.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. __/s/ Seth O’Loughlin______________ Dated: September 18, 2026 Seth O’Loughlin