Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses - George F Eyde Family v Alaiedon Twp 26-001651.pdf
George F Eyde Family, LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Alaiedon Respondent · 26-001651-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 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL ______________________ GEORGE F EYDE FAMILY, LLC, Petitioner, v. ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-001651 PPN: 33-06-06-04-227-009 ______________________________________________________________________________ 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 Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent 1700 East Beltline Avenue NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 mhomier@fosterswift.com tdillon@fosterswift.com ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S ANSWERS & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Alaiedon Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., states as follows for its Answer to Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition: 1. Property Parcel No: 33-06-06-04-227-009 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition. 2. The property identified above is: Real.
Page 2
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 2 of the Petition. 3. The property identified above is classified as Commercial-Improved. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___ December Board of Review. ANSWER: Paragraph 4 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 5. The property at issue is located in Ingham County. The property address is: 2121 University Park Dr, Okemos, MI 48864. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the Petition. 6. The assessment at issue was established by the (applicable local governmental unit): Alaiedon Township. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition. 7. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 300 S Washington Sq, Suite 400, Lansing, MI 48933. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves 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 neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 8 of the Petition as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 3
9. The tax years(s) at issue are: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition. 10. 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 2026 $2,508,600 $1,254,300 $1,208,379 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the Petition. 11. Petitioner contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $2,100,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 12. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $408,600 $204,300 $158,379 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 13. Petitioner requests the following relief: 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 is entitled to the relief requested in paragraph 13 of the Petition. 14. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested: 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;
Page 4
b. The subject property is assessed in an amount greater than 50% of its true cash value; 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: The preceding allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies the allegations. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Alaiedon Township, by and through its attorneys, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., and states that it may rely on one or all of the following Affirmative Defenses: 1. The appropriate methods of assessing the Subject Property were used and those methods conform to the methods used to assess similarly situated property in the State. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 3. 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 the Respondent. 4. Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8)), including on, but not necessarily limited to, the following grounds: a. The Petition does not comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules TTR 227(1) and (2)(f). b. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction or “Petitioner’s” standing.
Page 5
c. The Petition provides no factual basis to determine that the assessment is incorrect. d. The Petitioner provides no factual basis to support the claim for different values. e. The Petition establishes no factual basis for relief. 5. Petitioner may not be a proper party-in-interest. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 6. Petitioner may not have standing to appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5) and (8). 7. The Tribunal may lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (8). 8. Petitioner may have failed to comply with state property tax law by, inter alia, failing to report or failing to report completely its assessable property, such that its property taxes were delinquent or underpaid, Petitioner is precluded from appealing its property values, and Respondent should be awarded damages. 9. Respondent has properly and lawfully assessed Petitioner’s property and established its taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 10. Respondent reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known to it through discovery in this matter. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Tribunal affirm the assessed and taxable values as determined by Respondent, dismiss the Petition, and award Respondent its costs and attorney fees and any other relief that the Tribunal determines is fair, just, and equitable.
Page 6
Respectfully Submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: October 2, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Michael D. Homier (P60318) Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258 89894:00004:203122265-1