MTA Response_Zuckerbrod 25_FINAL.pdf
Daniel Zuckerbrod, Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield, Respondent · 24-004053-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL DANIEL & DAPHNA ZUCKERBROD, Petitioner, v CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 24-004053 Parcel No. 76-24-24-305-010 _____________________________________________________________________________/ THOMAS P. CHRISTY (P55593) DEAN & FULKERSON, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 100 W. Big Beaver, Suite 650 Troy, MI 48084 (248) 362-1300 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 _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION TO CONTEST 2025 ASSESSED VALUE, TAXABLE VALUE, AND STATE EQUALIZED VALUE Respondent, City of Southfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., states the following in opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend: 1. Respondent admits that the identified parcel is located in the City of Southfield, Oakland County and has an address of 17565 Alta Vista Drive. As to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said allegations and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 for the reason that MTT docket no. 23-002752 and any filing by Petitioner speaks for itself. 3. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 for the reason that MTT docket no. 23-002752 and any filing by Petitioner speaks for itself. 4. To the extent the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 pertain to the above captioned appeal, Respondent admits said allegations.
Page 2
2 5. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s desire to contest the issues identified in Paragraph 5 but denies that those issues have merit and further denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 6. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 as the cited authority and the timing of Petitioner’s filing speaks for themselves 7. Respondent admits a protest was made. Respondent neither admits nor denies the necessity of such a protest as MCL 205.735a speaks for itself. Respondent denies the inclusion of an Exhibit 1 with Petitioner’s Motion. 8. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 $1,062,780 $531,390 $454,263 9. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 $1,062,780 $531,390 $454,263 10. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 $0 $0 $0 11. Respondent admits the property’s classification has not changed from the 2024 tax year. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner is not protesting the subject property’s classification. 12. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue regarding the value of an addition or loss as well as the capped value of the property but denies any merit to said beliefs. In further response, 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. 13. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13, including subparts (a)-(d), for the reason that the same are untrue. 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. 14. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of its Motion but denies Petitioner is entitled to said relief for the reasons stated above.
Page 3
3 WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Southfield, requests the Tribunal deny the Motion, 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/Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: August 20, 2025 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Southfield, 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.
Page 4
4 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/Laura M. Hallahan______________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Date: August 20, 2025 (248) 731-3089 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Answer to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to: Thomas D. Christy Dean & Fulkerson, P.C. tchristy@dflaw.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. _/s/Kelsea M. Melcher____________ Dated: August 20, 2025 Kelsea M. Melcher