Answer to Petition - Clark Logistics 25.pdf
Clark Logistics Group Lv, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Benton Harbor, Respondent · 25-001668-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 DEPT. OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS IN THE MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CLARK LOGISTICS GROUP LV, LLC MOAHR Docket No. 25-001668-TT Petitioner, v. ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES CITY OF BENTON HARBOR, Respondent. Michael B. Shapiro (P20282) Sara A. Senica (P66004) Honigman LLP Attorney for Respondent Representatives for Petitioner Law Office of Sara A. Senica, PLLC 660 Woodward Avenue 12 Longmeadow Village Drive 2290 First National Building Niles, MI 49120 Detroit, MI 48226-3506 Ph. 269-684-1500 Ph. 313- 465-7622 Email: sara.sblaw@gmail.com Email: mshapiro@honigman.com __________________________________________________________________________ ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent City of Benton Harbor, by and through its attorney, states as follows in response to Petitioner’s Petition: 1. Respondent City admits that the parcels at issue are contiguous parcels 11-54-0009-0020- 08-2 and 11-54-0009-0020-09-1 with an address of 1042 N. Crystal Avenue, Benton Harbor, Berrien County, Michigan, and Respondent neither admits nor denies the principal office address of Petitioner, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent City admits the allegations in paragraph 2. 3. Respondent City admits the allegations in paragraph 3. 4. Respondent City denies the statement in paragraph 4 as untrue, as both parcels are classified as “Industrial”. 5. Respondent City lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 5, but Respondent denies that the property is not appropriately assessed.
Page 2
6. Respondent City lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations stated in paragraph 5, but Respondent denies that the property is not appropriately assessed. 7. Respondent City admits that Petitioner did not appear at Respondent’s Board of Review. 8. Respondent City denies the statements made in paragraph 8 as untrue. (a) Respondent City denies the statements made in paragraph 8(a) as untrue. (b) Respondent City denies the statements made in paragraph 8(b) as untrue. (c) Respondent City denies the statements made in paragraph 8(c) as untrue. (d) Respondent City denies the statements made in paragraph 8(d) as untrue. WHEREFORE, Respondent City respectfully requests that this honorable Tribunal dismiss the Petition and uphold the assessed, taxable, and true cash values established by Respondent, along with awarding costs and fees, including attorney fees, incurred by Respondent in defense of this matter, along with granting all other relief the Tribunal deems just and proper. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Petitioner’s claims against Respondent are barred because the valuation method used by Respondent comply with the Constitution, state law, and prevailing State Tax Commission procedures. 3. Respondent’s assessment reflects 50% of the subject property’s true cash value, and the values on the roll, including the taxable value, comply with the General Property Tax Act. 4. Petitioner has failed to allege facts to support its allegation that the taxable value of the subject property is improper. 5. Respondent City asserts and does not waive the affirmative defenses set forth in MCR 2.111(F)(3) to the extent that said defenses are established by the facts of this case. 6. Respondent City expressly reserves the right to plead and assert further and other affirmative defenses as supported by the facts of the case. August 11, 2025 Respectfully Submitted, _____________________________________ Sara A. Senica, Attorney for Respondent City