Answer to Petition.pdf
Casa Mia LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Chesterfield Respondent · 26-001517-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL CASA MIA, LLC Petitioner, -VS- MTT Docket No. 26-001517 TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD, Respondent. / JAY A. SCHWARTZ CHRISTINE D. ANDERSON (P45141) Representative for Petitioner SEIBERT AND DLOSKI, PLLC 37887 West Twelve Mile, Suite B Attorney for Respondent Farmington Hills, Ml 48331 19500 Hall Road, Suite 101 (248)672-1922 Clinton Township, MI 48038 jschwartz@propertytaxreductionservices.org (586) 469-3800 canderson@seibertanddloski.com CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD’S ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION The Charter Township of Chesterfield (‘Respondent’), by and through its attorneys, SEIBERT AND DLOSKI, PLLC, for its answer to Petitioner's Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition states as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 1. 2. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2. 3. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 3, therefore, no response is required. 4. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 4, therefore, no response is required. 5. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 5, therefore, no response is required.
Page 2
6. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 7, therefore, no response is required. 8. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 8, therefore, no response is required. 9. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 9, therefore, no response is required. 10. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. 11. Respondent admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 12. 13. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 for the reason they are untrue. 14. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14. 15. Petitioner did not set forth any allegations in Paragraph 15, therefore, no response is required. 16. Respondent admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16. 17. Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 17. 18. Respondent denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 for the reason they are untrue. 19. Respondent denies that Plaintiff is entitled to relief requested for the reason it is untrue.
Page 3
20. Respondent denies that a lower valuation is supportable for the reason it is untrue and further states that the valuation of the subject property complies with Michigan statutory law and the Constitution. WHEREFORE, the Respondent respectfully requests the Tax Tribunal dismiss the Petition and award the Respondent its costs and attorney fees. Respectfully submitted, RT AND DLOSKI, PLLC SEIB ) By: Christine D. Anderson (P45141) Attorney for Respondent 19500 Hall Road, Suite 101 Clinton Township, MI 48038 Dated: September 23, 2026 (586) 469-3800