2026.10.02 Answer Affirm Def & POS 26-001660.pdf
Eyde Ironpoint LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Meridian Respondent · 26-001660-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EYDE IRONPOINT, LLC, Petitioner, v MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001660 PARCEL NO. 33-02-02-29-105-004 ______________________________________/ Michael F. Matheson (P52997) Matheson Law Firm Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Woodland Pass, Suite F East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 993-6699 michael@mathesonlawfirm.com Mark K. Clouse (P38513) Co-Counsel for Petitioner 300 S. Washington Sq, Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 512 6834 clouse@eyde.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Property Parcel No: 33-02-02-29-105-004 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 2. The property identified above is _X_ real ____ personal. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. The property identified above is classified as Commercial-Improved. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 4. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was
Page 2
2 made to Respondent's March ___July ___December Board of Review. ANSWER: N/A 5. The property at issue is located in Ingham County. The property address is: 4440 Hagadorn Rd. Okemos. MI 48864. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 6. The assessment at issue was established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Meridian Township. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. Petitioner's legal residence or principal office address is: 300 S Washington Sq. Suite 400. Lansing. MI 48933. ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations, which are therefore denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 8. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): XX the property or properties' true cash and taxable values the property or properties' taxable value only If the property or properties' taxable value is at issue, is there a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss? Yes _x_ No uniformity of the property or properties' assessment the property or the properties' exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 9. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash and taxable value for the 2026 tax year. 10. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent's
Page 3
3 Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $1,843,000 $921,500 $901,603 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 11. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $1,500,000 $750,000 $750,000 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 12. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $343,000 $171,500 $151,603 ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 13. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): Determine the correct true cash value and lawfully assess the property in accordance with Michigan law. Petitioner further requests its costs, interest and reasonable attorney fees. ANSWER: Respondent denies that Petitioner’s contentions of value have merit and requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s requests. 14. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): The assessment by Respondent of the subject project is arbitrary and discriminatory, based on the wrong principles, and otherwise unlawful as being contrary to the General Property Tax Act and Tax Tribunal Act for the following reasons: a. Respondent has failed to identify the nature of the property being assessed; b. The subject property is assessed in an amount greater than 50% of its true cash value;
Page 4
4 c. Respondent did not assess the subject property taking into account the accepted methods of determining true cash value; d. The subject property is subject to restrictions, and said restrictions severely restrict the market value of the project. However, the restrictions were not taken into account by Respondent in making the assessment, even though Respondent was clearly required to do so, pursuant to Michigan law; and e. The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent October 2, 2026 _________________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EYDE IRONPOINT, LLC, Petitioner, v MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001660 PARCEL NO. 33-02-02-29-105-004 ______________________________________/ Michael F. Matheson (P52997) Matheson Law Firm Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Woodland Pass, Suite F East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 993-6699 michael@mathesonlawfirm.com Mark K. Clouse (P38513) Co-Counsel for Petitioner 300 S. Washington Sq, Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 512 6834 clouse@eyde.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, by and through its attorneys, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 1. Petitioner failed to state a claim for which its requested relief, or any other relief, may be granted. 2. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s conduct renders it estopped or otherwise barred from asserting the claims presented in the Petition.
Page 6
2 3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations, laches, and/or undue delay. 4. Petitioner’s legal theories and requested relief are either not recognized as valid under Michigan law or have no application to the facts of this case. 5. Some or all of Petitioner’s claims and requests for relief are barred on jurisdictional or jurisprudential grounds as moot, not ripe, and/or not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and authority. 6. There is no issue of material fact, and Respondent is entitled to the dismissal of the Petition in its entirety and with prejudice. 7. Petitioner waived any right to assert the claims presented in the petition, or its claims are otherwise barred in whole or in part, by lack of standing, failure to be the real party in interest, agreement, consent, acquiescence, ratification, course of conduct or performance, promissory and/or other estoppel, misrepresentation, release, abandonment, or violation of law. 8. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish fraud, error of law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of Respondent. 9. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to support its allegation that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% of the subject property’s true cash value or that the subject property’s taxable value is incorrect.
Page 7
3 10. Petitioner has asked this Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a method of assessment different that that utilized in the assessment of other properties in Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to Respondent’s remaining taxpayers. 11. Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines. 12. Petitioner’s characterization of the assessment(s) and taxes is contrary to law and refuted by documentary evidence. 13. Respondent reserves the right to amend and supplement these affirmative defenses as facts are learned through continuing investigation and discovery and as the Tribunal permits. Dated: October 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent By: __________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, MI 48864 (517) 381-0100
Page 8
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL EYDE IRONPOINT, LLC, Petitioner, v MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001660 PARCEL NO. 33-02-02-29-105-004 ______________________________________/ Michael F. Matheson (P52997) Matheson Law Firm Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Woodland Pass, Suite F East Lansing, MI 48823 (517) 993-6699 michael@mathesonlawfirm.com Mark K. Clouse (P38513) Co-Counsel for Petitioner 300 S. Washington Sq, Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 (517) 512 6834 clouse@eyde.com Ross K. Bower II (P70574) Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com PROOF OF SERVICE Jamy A. Staffeld states that on October 2, 2026 she served a copy of Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Michael F. Matheson Matheson Law Firm 200 Woodland Pass, Suite F East Lansing, MI 48823 Mark K. Clouse 300 S. Washington Sq, Suite 400 Lansing, MI 48933 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld