Joint Motion for Abeyance (Z on Sixth v Royal Oak 26-002368) 10-18-26.pdf
Z On Sixth LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak Respondent · 26-002368-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 Z on Sixth LLC, Petitioner, v City of Royal Oak, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-002368 Parcel No. 72-25-21-283-005 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JAY A. SCHWARTZ PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION SERVICES Representative for Petitioner 37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite B Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 672-1922 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 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JOINT MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE PENDING MTT DOCKET NO. 24-001719 The parties by and through their respective counsel state the following in support of the above captioned Motion: 1. The above captioned appeal concerns the 2026 valuation of commercial property located in Oakland County. 2. With the exception of the tax year at issue, the parties, property, and issues raised in the above captioned appeal are, based on the pleadings, in essence identical to those at issue in MTT docket no. 24-001719—an appeal concerning the 2024 and 2025 tax years.
Page 2
2 3. The above captioned 2026 appeal is ready to be placed on a Prehearing General Call and Order of Procedure. 4. However, as of the filing of the above captioned Motion, the 2025 reiteration (MTT docket no. 24-001719) has not yet been resolved. The 2024 reiteration is scheduled for hearing on June 15 - 18, 2027. A Final Opinion and Judgment will likely not be rendered until Fall 2028. 5. A Final Opinion and Judgment from the Tribunal regarding MTT docket no. 24- 001719 could impact this 2026 appeal and the parties’ desire to proceed with this appeal. Thus, it could potentially be a waste of time and resources for the parties and the Tribunal to proceed with the above captioned appeal when the prior 2024 appeal remains pending. 6. To proceed with this case before a resolution regarding MTT docket no. 24- 001719 has been reached would likely not constitute an efficient administration of justice. 7. Proceeding with the above captioned appeal will require the parties and the Tribunal to expend substantial resources which may ultimately be unnecessary. Placing the above captioned appeal in abeyance at this juncture before substantial time and resources have been spent—including, but not limited to, the preparation of prehearing statements and valuation disclosures—is in the interest of efficiency to all parties involved and judicial economy. 8. As evidenced above, there is good cause for granting this joint Motion to hold the above captioned appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of its 2024 iteration, MTT docket no. 24-001719. WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request the Tribunal enter an Order holding the above captioned appeal in abeyance pending the resolution of MTT docket no. 24-001719.
Page 3
3 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jay A. Schwartz /s/ Laura M. Hallahan JAY A. SCHWARTZ Representative for Petitioner Dated: October 18, 2026 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Respondent Dated: October 14, 2026