reply to affirm defenses.pdf
Milgrom Revocable Living Trust Petitioner Vs. City Of Huntington Woods Respondent · 26-002914-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MILGROM REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST Petitioner, v. MTT Docket No. 26-002914 CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS, Respondent. Parcel No. 32-25-20-327-003 _______________________________/ PETITIONER’S REPLY TO RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Petitioner, Milgrom Revocable Living Trust, denies and replies to Respondent’s Affirmative Defenses as follows: FACTS. A. Service of Petition. 1. Petitioner timely e-filed its Petition on July 30, 2026 (the “Petition”). 2. The Petition concerns property parcel number 32-25-20-327-003 (the “Property”). 3. After completing the e-filing process, Petitioner checked the Tribunal’s docket to verify that the Petition had been successfully submitted. 4. In viewing the docket, Petitioner learned that docket number 26-002914 had been assigned to this appeal. 5. Petitioner noted the assigned docket number on the Petition. See TTR 227(5). 6. On August 7, 2026, Petitioner served the Petition (with the assigned docket number) on Respondent via certified mail. 7. As required by TTR 227(3)(c), the Petition served on Respondent contained the docket number.
Page 2
2 8. The Petition was served on Respondent via certified mail within 45 days after the issuance of the docket number. See TTR 227(5). 9. On August 7, 2026, Petitioner e-filed its Proof of Service, which included the docket number of this appeal. 10. On September 24, 2026, the Tribunal served a Notice of Docket Number (the “Notice”). 11. The Notice states: “This docket number shall be noted on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal with 45 days of the issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the Petition.” 12. Having already served the Petition with the assigned docket number on Respondent, on September 24, 2026 Petitioner called the Tribunal to inquire about the need to serve the Petition a second time and to resubmit the Proof of Service. 13. Petitioner was informed that, since both the Petition served on Respondent and the Proof of Service filed with the Tribunal included the assigned docket number, there was no need to repeat the service of the Petition or the filing of the Proof of Service. B. Entire Tribunal Petition. 14. Petitioner elected to have this appeal heard by the entire Tribunal. 15. Petitioner did not elect to have this appeal heard in the small claims division. 16. Petitioner challenges the uniformity of the assessment of the Property. 17. Petitioner also challenges the true cash and taxable value of the Property. DISCUSSION. A. Service of Petition. 18. Respondent asserts improper service of the Petition as an affirmative defense, stating that it “was not properly served with the Petition bearing the assigned docket number as required by TTR 235(1).”
Page 3
3 19. TTR 235(1) sets forth the requirement that a Respondent answer a petition. 20. TTR 235(1) does not contain any rules regarding service of a petition. 21. TTR 227(6) sets forth the action that a Petitioner must take to properly serve a petition. 22. TTR 227(6) requires a Petitioner “shall serve the petition with noted docket number” by certified mail or delivered by personal service to, among others, Respondent at its last known address. 23. The Petition (with the assigned docket number) was served by certified mail on Respondent at its last known address. See receipt of mailing with U.S. Postal Service and tracking data, attached as Exhibit A. 24. Respondent does not claim that it did not receive the Petition served on it. 25. Respondent has failed to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the Petition served on it. 26. Respondent fails to state any facts alleging a deficiency in the service of the Petition on Respondent. 27. The facts stated by Respondent relate to Petitioner’s filing of the Petition and Proof of Service with the Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s issuance of the Notice of Docket Number. 28. Petitioner completed proper service of the Petition, with the assigned docket number printed on it, when it mailed such to Respondent’s last known address on August 7, 2026 (certified mail tracking number 9589071052704271256941). See Exhibit A. 29. The Petition was received by Respondent on August 10, 2026. See Exhibit A. B. Entire Tribunal Petition. 30. Where the jurisdictional requirements of the small claims division are satisfied, a party may elect to proceed before either the entire tribunal or the small claims division. MCL § 205.762(2). 31. By filing an Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Petitioner elected to proceed before the entire tribunal. 32. As an Affirmative Defense, paragraph 22 of Respondent’s answer asserts that this appeal should be transferred to the small claims division.
Page 4
4 33. Respondent stated reason for the transfer is that “[t]he appeal concerns a single residential parcel and Petitioner’s challenge to the property’s 2026 true cash value, assessed/state equalized value, and taxable value.” 34. Respondent fails to inform the Tribunal that this appeal also concerns a challenge to the uniformity of the property assessment. 35. Respondent’s statement merely discloses that this appeal meets the jurisdictional requirements of both the entire tribunal and the small claims division. 36. All cases that meet the jurisdictional requirements of the small claims division also meet the jurisdictional requirements of the entire tribunal. See MCL § 205.762(2) which only permits a person to proceed before the small claims division if the person is “entitled to proceed under section 31,” which is a proceeding before the entire tribunal. 37. When raising an affirmative defense, the party must state the facts constituting the affirmative defense. MCR 2.111(F)(3). 38. The fact that the entire tribunal and the small claims division have concurrent jurisdiction over this appeal is not a fact that constitutes an affirmative defense. 39. The function of affirmative defenses is to give notice of the nature of the defense sufficient to permit the opposing party to take a responsive position. Glasker-Davis v. Auvenshine, 333 Mich.App. 222, 230 (2020). 40. Merely enumerating an affirmative defense without supporting facts is insufficient to give notice of the nature of the defense sufficient to permit the opposing party to take a responsive position. Id, at 231-232. 41. Respondent has failed to provide facts sufficient to notify Petitioner of the nature of the affirmative defense it has asserted.
Page 5
5 CONCLUSION. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Tribunal grant it the following relief: A. Enter an Order dismissing Respondent’s affirmative defenses; and B. Grant Petitioner any other relief that the Tribunal determines to be appropriate. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: October 12, 2026 /s/ Steve Milgrom_____________ Steve Milgrom, Trustee (P34891) PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on Respondent on the date set forth below by first class mail by placing it in the United States mail with postage fully paid thereon, addressed to the address provided by Respondent in its answer. Dated: October 12, 2026 /s/ Steve Milgrom_____________ Steve Milgrom (P34891) email: steve.milgrom@gmail.com
Page 6
Tracking Number: 9589071052704271256941 Copy Add to Informed Delivery Latest Update Your item was delivered to an individual at the address at 10:44 am on August 10, 2026 in HUNTINGTON WOODS, MI 48070. Get More Out of USPS Tracking: USPS Tracking Plus® EXH/Z/T A ® Delivered Delivered, Left with Individual HUNTINGTON WOODS, MI 48070 August 10, 2026 10:44 AM ® Arrived at USPS Facility PONTIAC MI DISTRIBUTION CENTER August 7, 2026 10:37 PM ® Departed Post Office ROYAL OAK, MI 48068 August 7, 2026 7:03 PM ® yUSPSin possession of item ROYAL OAK, MI 48068 August 7, 2026 3:23 PM ® Hide Tracking History What Do USPS Tracking Statuses Mean? See More \v/ Remove X