Kroger v. Midland Answer to Petition.pdf

The Kroger Co Of Michigan, Petitioner Vs. City Of Midland, Respondent · 25-002061-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

THE KROGER CO OF MICHIGAN, 

Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF MIDLAND, 

Respondent. 

MTT Docket No.: 25-002061 

DUCHARME, MCMILLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

By: 

Michelle (Mikki) M. Silvey (P69494) 

Alex Morse 

Representatives for Petitioner 

9229 Delegates Row, Suite 375 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

(317) 689-6467 

(917) 488-7825 

msilvey@dmainc.com 

amorse@dmainc.com 

BRAUN KENDRICK FINKBEINER P.L.C. 

By: 

Francis J. Keating (P39223) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4301 Fashion Square Blvd. 

Saginaw, MI 48603 

(989) 498-2100 

frakea@braunkendrick.com 

Christoper G. Komara (P61503) 

City Attorney/Attorney for Respondent 

City of Midland 

333 W. Ellsworth St. 

Midland, MI 48640 

(989) 837-3395 

ckomara@midland-mi.org 

RESPONDENT’S ANSWER TO 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION — MULTIPLE PARCELS 

NOW COMES Respondent, 

City 

of Midland, 

by and through 

its attorneys, Braun 

Kendrick Finkbeiner P.L.C., and for its Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, states 

as follows: 

1: 

Admitted. 

2: 

Admitted. 

Admitted. 

[98 

4897-3370-8398, v. 1

4. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 4. 

S. 

Admitted. 

6. 

Respondent admits no Board of Review protest was required. 

7. 

Admitted. 

8. 

Admitted. 

9. 

Admitted. 

10. 

~~ Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 10. 

11. 

Respondent admits that Petitioner’s petition states that this appeal involves issues 

relating to the properties true cash value, taxable value, and uniformity. 

12. 

Admitted. 

13. 

Admitted. 

14. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 14. 

Respondent denies as untrue that the true cash value, 

state equalized value and taxable value determined by it for the subject properties, are incorrect. 

15. 

Respondent admits that Petitioner has correctly computed the amount of true cash 

value, state equalized value and taxable value in contention, by subtracting its erroneous value 

claims from the values correctly determined by Respondent. 

16. 

Respondent denies as untrue the allegations in paragraph 16 and any implication 

that the assessment of the subject properties is incorrect. 

16a. 

Respondent denies as untrue the allegations in paragraph 16a. 

16b. 

Respondent denies as untrue the allegations in paragraph 16b. 

4897-3370-8398, v. 1

l6¢c. 

Respondent denies as untrue the allegations in paragraph 16c. 

16d. 

Respondent denies as untrue the allegations in paragraph 16d. 

ANSWER TO MULTIPLE PARCEL PETITION FORM 

1 OF 

1 

1. 

Admitted. 

2. 

Admitted. 

3. 

Respondent lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in paragraph 3. 

4. 

Respondent admits that Petitioner has correctly computed the values in dispute by 

subtracting its erroneously claimed values from the values correctly determined by Respondent. 

NEW MATTERS AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. 

Petitioner has failed to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of 

action against Respondent. 

2. 

Petitioner has failed 

to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to establish fraud, 

discrimination, or illegality on the part of the Respondent. 

3. 

Petitioner may not be the real party in interest to bring this tax appeal. 

4. 

Petitioner may not have standing to bring this tax appeal. 

5. 

Petitioner has failed to show that any factor other than fifty percent (50%) was 

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s properties, as well as all others, to arrive at the 

respective assessments appearing on the roll, and also fails to allege specific and sufficient facts 

to support its allegations that the properties taxable value is improper. 

6. 

Respondent 

has 

properly 

and 

lawfully 

assessed 

Petitioner's 

properties 

and 

established their taxable value in accordance with statutory and constitutional requirements. 

wl 

4897-3370-8398, v. 1

7% 

All 

of the 

subject 

properties 

were 

assessed uniformly 

in accordance 

with 

Michigan law. 

8. 

Respondent reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses during the 

pendency of this action. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Midland, respectfully requests that this Honorable 

Tribunal provide it with the following relief: 

A. 

Dismiss the Petition with prejudice, and award Respondent its costs and attorney 

fees wrongfully incurred in the defense of this action; and 

B 

Provide Respondent with such other relief as the Tribunal deems appropriate. 

BRAUN KEN 

IER P.L.C. 

Dated: October 14, 2025 

BY: 

< 

FRANCIS J. KEATING (P39223) 

Attorney for Respondent 

4897-3370-8398, v. 1

← View full record