Valley View (Unit 1), LLC 25-001695 Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's Petition 6-5-25.pdf
Valley View ( Unit 1) LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Pittsfield, Respondent · 25-001695-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 S E C R E S T W A R D L E STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL VALLEY VIEW (UNIT1), LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No. 25-001695 -vs- PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, Respondent. _________________________________________________________________________________/ FRIEDMAN REAL ESTATE John-Paul Wolfe Authorized Representative 34975 W. Twelve Mile Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 848-1154 jp.wolfe@freg.com SECREST WARDLE Alana E. Knox (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 aknox@secrestwardle.com _________________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITIONERS’ ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION NOW COMES Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF PITTSFIELD, by and through its attorneys, SECREST WARDLE, and for its Answer to Petitioners’ Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states as follows: 1. Answering paragraph 1, Respondent admits the subject property under appeal is property parcel number L-12-12-330-001. 2. Answering paragraph 2, Respondent admits the property identified as property parcel number L-12-12-330-001 is real property. 3. Answering paragraph 3, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny.
Page 2
2 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 4. Answering paragraph 4, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny. 5. Answering paragraph 5, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny. 6. Answering paragraph 6, Respondent admits that parcel L-12-12-330-001 is real property classified as 201 Commercial-Improved. 7. Answering paragraph 7, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny. 8. Answering paragraph 8, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny. 9. Answering paragraph 9, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny. 10. Answering paragraph 10, Respondent admits that the parcel identified as L-12-12-330- 001 has a property address of 3725 Carpenter Road, Ypsilanti, MI, Washtenaw County. 11. Answering paragraph 11, Respondent admits the same. 12. Answering paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Answering paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 13 for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. Answering paragraph 14, Respondent admits that the tax year at issue is 2025. 15. Answering paragraph 15, Respondent states that the paragraph contains no information in which to either admit or deny.
Page 3
3 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 16. Answering paragraph 16, Respondent admits that the subject property’s 2025 true cash, assessed and taxable values on the Respondent’s assessment roll are as follows: PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE ASSESSED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE L-12-12-330-001 $ 3,757,688 $ 1,878,844 $ 1,469,637 17. Answering paragraph 17, Respondent denies that the subject property’s 2025 true cash, state equalized, and taxable values were no higher than: PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE STATE EQUALIZED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE L-12-12-330-001 $ 1,650,000 $ 825,000 $ 825,000 18. Answering paragraph 18, Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 18, for lack of sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 19. Answering paragraph 19, Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to a reduction in the subject property’s 2025 true cash, state equalized and taxable values to the amounts set forth below: PARCEL NUMBER TRUE CASH VALUE STATE EQUALIZED VALUE TAXABLE VALUE L-12-12-330-001 $ 1,650,000 $ 825,000 $ 825,000 20. Answering paragraph 20, Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner but denies Petitioner’s claims have merit. WHEREFORE, Respondent, PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessments and taxable values of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition
Page 4
4 S E C R E S T W A R D L E be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Drive, P.O. Box 5025 Troy, Michigan 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 Dated: June 5, 2025 aknox@secrestwardle.com AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For its further Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses, Respondent respectfully requests unto this Honorable Tribunal 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, 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 with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question. 4. Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash value, assessed value and taxable value of its property. 5. 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 its allegations that the property’s taxable value is improper.
Page 5
5 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 6. 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. 7. 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 other properties in the Respondent’s taxing unit. 8. 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. 9. Petitioner failed to allege to the Board of Review that: A. The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable statutory and constitutional limitations. B. The property is assessed in a discriminatory manner and that the assessment is a higher level of true cash value than the average level of assessment of all other property within the Township, excepting this property and the assessment on other property which is also under appeal. C. The assessment and taxable value are unlawful and based upon the application of wrong principles and thereby operate as a constructive fraud upon the taxpayer. The failure to raise such objections to the Respondent’s Board of Review constitutes a failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided for by the General Property Tax Act, constitutes a waiver of any such allegations contained in the Petition, and further amounts to a failure by the Petitioner to appear in protest to Respondent’s Board of review as required by the Tax Tribunal Act. 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.
Page 6
6 S E C R E S T W A R D L E 12. Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion. 13. Respondent reserves the right to add to these Affirmative Defenses any new Affirmative Defenses that discovery reveals. WHEREFORE, Respondent, PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP, denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent’s assessment and taxable value of the subject property be affirmed or increased and that Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully incurred. Respectfully submitted, SECREST WARDLE BY: /s/ Alana E. Knox ALANA E. KNOX (P85859) Attorney for Respondent 2600 Troy Center Dr., P.O. Box 5025 Troy, MI 48007-5025 (248) 851-9500 Dated: June 5, 2025 aknox@secrestwardle.com PROOF OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 5, 2025, a copy of the foregoing document, Respondent’s Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition and Affirmative Defenses, was filed electronically with the Michigan Tax Tribunal, and was served upon: John-Paul Wolfe Friedman Real Estate 34975 W. Twelve Mile Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331 by depositing same in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon. /s/ Tamera Briggs Tamera Briggs (9899103.1)