MTA 26 Response_Ripley_FINAL.pdf
Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust, Petitioner Vs. City Of Warren, Respondent · 25-002292-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 RIPLEY VENTURES, LLC, Petitioner, v REDFORD TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-001684 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JASON CONTI (P55617) FOLEY & LARDNER LLP Attorney for Petitioner 500 Woodward Ave, Suite 2700 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 234-7100 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 _____________________________________________________________________________/ RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION TO CONTEST 2026 ASSESSED AND TAXABLE VALUES Respondent, Redford Township, by and through its attorneys, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Motion to Amend as follows: 1. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 to the extent Petitioner’s real property pertains to the two parcels of real property identified to be at issue in Petitioner’s Petition. 2. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 2, including subparagraphs (a)- (d), for the reason that the same are untrue. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage of true cash value permitted by law, were correctly determined and are based upon correct application of
Page 2
2 proper principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and constitutional. 3. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph of the Motion but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in the above Paragraphs. Respondent incorporates by reference the affirmative defenses set forth in its Answer to Petition herein. WHEREFORE, Respondent, Redford Township, requests the Tribunal enter an Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Amend and dismissing the appeal. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher_____________ LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) Attorneys for Respondent 1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Dated: June 16, 2026 (248) 731-3089 PROOF OF MAILING On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend to: Jason Conti Foley & Lardner LLP jconti@foley.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher_________________ Dated: June 16, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher