Answer Impulso 5751 LLC v Indy MTT .pdf
Impulso 5751 LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Independence, Respondent · 25-002451-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 IMPULSO 5751 LLC, Petitioner, MTT Docket No.: 25-002451-TT v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, Respondent. _____________________________________________________________________________ Stephen Polter Daniel J. Kelly (P41315) Polter Law Morgan McAtamney Martin (P80047) Attorney for Petitioner Nancy Olind (P73723) 2600 W. Big Beaver, Ste L100 THE KELLY FIRM, PLC Troy, MI 48084 Attorneys for Respondent (248) 213-6800 512 E. 11 Mile Rd spolter@polterlaw.com Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 655-7025 dan@kellyfirmpc.com morgan@kellyfirmpc.com nancy@kellyfirmpc.com RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO PETITION, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND PROOF OF SERVICE NOW COMES the Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, by its attorneys, THE KELLY FIRM, PLC, and for its answer to the Parcel Petition, states as follows: 1. In response to paragraph 1, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 2. In response to paragraph 2, Respondent admits the allegations contained therein. 3. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 3 of its Petition.
Page 2
4. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 4 of its Petition. 5. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 5 of its Petition. 6. In response to paragraph 6, on information and belief Respondent admits same. 7. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 7 of its Petition. 8. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 8 of its Petition. 9. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 9 of its Petition.. 10. In response to paragraph 10, on information and belief Respondent admits same. 11. In response to paragraph 11, on information and belief Respondent admits same. 12. In response to paragraph 12, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. In response to paragraph 13, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 14. In response to paragraph 14, on information and belief Respondent admits same. 15. No response is required as Petitioner sets forth no allegations against Respondent in paragraph 15 of its petition. 16. In response to paragraph 16, Respondent admits in part the allegations contained therein. In further response, Respondent admits that the Respondent’s 2025 value for this property are as follows:
Page 3
Parcel Number Assessed Value Taxable Value J-08-15-451-003 $1,108,500 $1,108,500 17. In response to paragraph 17, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 18. In response to paragraph 18, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 19. In response to paragraph 19, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leave Petitioner to its proofs. 20. In response to paragraph 20, Respondent neither admits nor denies same for lack of sufficient information and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal enter an Order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition with costs and attorney fees to Respondent. THE KELLY FIRM, PLC /s/ Nancy L. Olind NANCY L. OLIND (P73723) DANIEL J. KELLY (P41315) 512 E. 11 Mile Rd. Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 655-7025 nancy@kellyfirmpc.com Attorney for Respondent Dated: August 7, 2025 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES NOW COMES the Respondent, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF INDEPENDENCE, by its attorneys, THE KELLY FIRM, PLC, and files the following Affirmative Defenses in support of its Answer to the Petition:
Page 4
1. The facts as alleged by the Petitioner do not establish mutual mistake of fact. 2. Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts upon which the mode and method of appraising property fails to conform with mode and method applied to all other properties in the community. 3. Petitioner has failed to show that any fact other than fifty percent (50%) was applied to the true cash value of the property. 4. Petitioner’s claim, if prevailed upon, would create a windfall for Petitioner and create a burden upon the Township, schools, County taxes, and other property owners in the community. 5. Petitioner is asking this Honorable Tribunal to make an underassessment based upon an arbitrary basis. 6. A levy of all taxes is required to be made based upon the assessment of fifty percent (50%) of true cash value as ultimately determined by the process of County and State equalization. 7. Respondent reserves the right to file additional Affirmative Defenses as may become apparent in this case. THE KELLY FIRM, PLC /s/ Nancy L. Olind NANCY L. OLIND (P73723) DANIEL J. KELLY (P41315) 512 E. 11 Mile Rd. Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248) 655-7025 nancy@kellyfirmpc.com Attorney for Respondent Dated: August 7, 2025
Page 5
PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned states that on August 7, 2025, she electronically filed Respondent's Answer to Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service with the Michigan Tax Tribunal via the Tribunal's E-filing System and served a copy upon Representative for Petitioner via first class mail to Petitioners address by placing in a U.S. mail receptacle located in Royal Oak, Michigan. /s/ Julian Slavsky Julian Slavsky