Answer_Gasso_FINAL.pdf
Gasso Holding Co LLC & Arizona Investments LLC & Grand 8 LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Southfield Respondent · 26-000991-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 GASSO HOLDING CO LLC & ARIZONA INVESTMENTS LLC & GRAND 8 LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Respondent. Docket No. 26-000991 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JOSHUA T. SHILLIAR (P72674) COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL Attorney for Petitioner 400 W. Fourth Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 226- 1632 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 Southfield, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, Respondent denies that the parcels are contiguous and further denies that each Petitioner has an ownership interest in every parcel of property identified to be at issue. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.
Page 2
2 3. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3. 4. Respondent admits that subject property is classified as commercial real property. With respect to the remaining allegations set in forth in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. Respondent admits no protest was made but neither admits nor denies the necessity of such a protest as the General Property Tax Act speaks for itself. 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 7 but denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and further denies Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 8. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2026 tax year but denies any issue with said tax year. 9. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 76-24-31-356-025 $726,600 $363,300 $317,919 76-24-34-457-033 $979,360 $489,680 $484,657 76-24-34-479-025 $2,946,020 $1,473,010 $1,422,659 10. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 10, including subparagraphs (a)- (d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of 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.
Page 3
3 11. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Parcel Number True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 76-24-31-356-025 $726,600 $363,300 $317,919 76-24-34-457-033 $979,360 $489,680 $484,657 76-24-34-479-025 $2,946,020 $1,473,010 $1,422,659 12. The values in dispute are: Parcel Number True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 76-24-31-356-025 $0 $0 $0 76-24-34-457-033 $0 $0 $0 76-24-34-479-025 $0 $0 $0 13. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 13. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of 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 the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Southfield, 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. 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 18, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 4
4 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. 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.
Page 5
5 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 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: Joshua T. Shillair Colliers International joshua.shillair@colliers.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher______________ Dated: August 18, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher