Answer to Petition - FF of Lansing v. Charter Twp. of Lansing MTT 26-000781.pdf
Ff Of Lansing LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Lansing Charter Respondent · 26-000781-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 ______________________ FF OF LANSING LLC, Petitioner, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-000781 Parcel ID No. 33-21-01-02-102-008 ______________________________________________________________________________ Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 (248) 731-3089 lhallahan@hallahanlaw.com 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 tdillon@fosterswift.com ______________________________________________________________________________ RESPONDENT CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF LANSING’S ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, Charter Township of Lansing, 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. The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: Parcel Number 33-21-01-02-102-008 Address 3320 Preyde Blvd. Classification 201-Commerical Imp Use Hotel County Ingham Sch Dist Lansing Public School District ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Petition.
Page 2
2. If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s _ March, _ July, _ December Board of Review. N/A. ANSWER: Paragraph 2 of the Petition contains no factual allegation to which a response is required. 3. Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4. Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject property. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies whether Petitioner is a “party-in- interest” as Respondent is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the allegation. Respondent leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 5. The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 210 S. Woodward Ave., Suite 230, Birmingham, MI 48009. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 5 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. 6. This appeal involves issues related to: the subject property’s true cash and taxable values. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in paragraph 6 of the Petition and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 7. The tax year at issue is: 2026. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in paragraph 7 of the Petition. 8. The values established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 33-21-01-02-102-008 7,104,800 3,552,400 3,070,627
Page 3
ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation in paragraph 8 regarding the subject property’s true cash and assessed values. 9. Petitioner contends that the values for the subject property are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 33-21-01-02-102-008 5,200,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of the Petition as untrue and erroneous. 10. The values in dispute are: Parcel Number TCV SEV TV 33-21-01-02-102-008 1,904,800 952,400 470,627 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in paragraph 10 based on Petitioner’s alleged values in paragraph 9 though Respondent denies that the values alleged in paragraph 9 are correct. 11. Petitioner relies on the following to support the relief requested: The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner’s property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; b) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; c) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner’s property that is taxable under Michigan law and is based upon the application of wrong principles; and d) The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its constitutional rights of uniformity, equal protection and due process of law.
Page 4
Petitioner requests that the Tribunal enter an order reducing the 2026 values from those established by Respondent’s Board of Review to those contended by Petitioner, and order refunds attributable to those reductions, with interest, as provided by the Tax Tribunal Act. ANSWER: The preceding allegation contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the relief requested as the assessed, state equalized and taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon the correct application of proper principals, and do not discriminate against Petitioner. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, Charter Township of Lansing, 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. 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.
Page 5
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. Respectfully Submitted, FOSTER SWIFT COLLINS & SMITH, PC Attorneys for Respondent Dated: July 23, 2026 By: ____________________________________ Thomas K. Dillon (P81136) 1700 East Beltline Ave. NE, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 (616) 726-2258