25-002274.pdf

Meijer Inc, Petitioner Vs. City Of Fremont, Respondent · 25-002274-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 

RECEIVED 

JUL 15 2075 

MICHIGAN Tax TRIBUNAL 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MEIJER, INC., 

Petitioner, 

v 

CITY OF FREMONT, 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 25-002274 

Parcel No. 62-13-33-400-024 

MICHAEL B. SHAPIRO (P20282) 

DANIEL L. STANLEY (P57052) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7622 

MARK C. MILLER (P68609) 

MURPHY CARIS & MILLER, P.C. 

Attorney for Respondent 

20 E. Main Street 

Fremont, MI 49412 

(231) 924-2226 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O'LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

KELSEA A. MELCHER (P85821) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

ANSWER TO SEVERED PETITION 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

ANSWER 

Respondent, City of Fremont, by and through its Co-Counsel, Hallahan & Associates, P.C., 

responds to the allegations made in Petitioner’s Petition as follows:

1. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 

1 as to parcel number and parcel 

location. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the remainder 

of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 

1 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2 insofar as 

it is the entity that 

assesses and collects property taxes with relation to the parcel identified in the Petition. 

3. 

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to the stated values. 

4. 

Respondent admits that subject property 

is classified as commercial real. With 

respect to the remainder of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4, Respondent lacks knowledge 

or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein and 

leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 5 but denies 

that Petitioner’s claims have merit and denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 

6. 

Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief relative to the value of a loss but 

denies that such loss has occurred. 

7. 

Respondent neither admits nor denies the statement in Paragraph 7 for the reason 

that no assertion is made. In further answer, Petitioner only sets forth a hypothetical condition (i.e., 

“if P.A. 174 of 2006 requires a board of review protest 

. 

. .) but then fails to state whether or not a 

protest was made. 

8. 

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, 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

principles, and the values and Respondents mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and 

constitutional. 

9. 

Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner in the final paragraph 

of the Petition but denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief due to the statements in 

the above Paragraphs. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Fremont, requests the Tribunal dismiss the Petition, 

affirm Respondent’s assessed and taxable values, subject to county and state equalization, and 

award Respondent its costs and attorney fees. 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

/s/Laura M, Hallahan 

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: 

July 9, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, City of Fremont, asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

1. 

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of action 

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief. 

2. 

The Tribunal is charged with finding a property’s true cash value to determine the 

property’s lawful assessment. Alki Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981).

4. 

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 Respondent or 

its agents. 

5. 

Petitioner has failed to allege that the mode and method of assessing the subject 

property fails to conform to the mode and method applied in the case of all other properties in 

Respondents taxing unit for the year in question. 

6. 

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

applied to the true cash value of Petitioner’s property, 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 property’s taxable value is improper. 

7. 

Petitioner asks the Tribunal to grant it preference by application of a self-chosen 

method of assessment contrary to the intent, purpose and law of this State. 

8. 

Petitioner, 

in essence, asks the Tribunal 

to grant 

it an illegal preference by 

application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the assessment of other 

properties in Respondent’s taxing unit. 

9. 

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by petition to challenge the process of county and state 

equalization as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action. 

10. 

Any decrease in the value of Petitioner’s property was a result of its own intentional 

acts and/or negligence and cannot be allowed to reduce Petitioner’s otherwise equitable tax burden. 

11. 

Respondent 

has 

properly 

and 

lawfully 

assessed 

Petitioner's 

property 

and 

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

13. 

Respondent reserves the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the same 

may become known to it during the course of these proceedings. 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

{s/ Laura M. Hallahan 

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 

Date: July 9, 2025 

(248) 731-3089 

PROOF OF MAILING 

On the date below I sent by electronic mail a copy of the foregoing Respondent’s Answer to Petition 

and Affirmative Defenses to: 

Michael B. Shapiro, Esq. 

mshapiro@honigman.com 

Daniel L. Stanley, Esq. 

dstanley@honigman.com 

I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. 

/s/Kelsea M. Melcher 

Dated: July 9, 2025 

Kelsea M. Melcher

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

rw 

ea oon 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

: 

METROPLEX MI 480 

-. 

Us

A 

0

10 JUL 2025 PM 6 L 

» 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 

B9694S.15 

~ 

: 

a 

co...

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

heh 

: 

ERE

← View full record