Answer to Petition 25-002844.pdf

Chelsea Clocktower Building LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Chelsea, Respondent · 25-002844-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 

 

Chelsea Clocktower Building LLC. 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

City of Chelsea, 

 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002844 

 

Parcel No. 06-06-12-111-001 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

STEWART L. MANDELL (P33781) 

DANIEL L STANLEY (P57052) 

HONIGMAN LLP 

Attorney for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7622 

LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) 

SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) 

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 

(248) 731-3089 

_____________________________________________________________________________/ 

 

 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

ANSWER 

 

Respondent City of Chelsea, by and through its attorneys, 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 the address and parcel 

number and leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to the remainder of the allegations as Respondent 

lacks the information necessary to respond. 

2. 

Respondent admits that it is the taxing municipality, but leaves Petitioner to its 

proofs as to the remainder of the allegations as Respondent lacks the information necessary to 

respond.

Page 2

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 3 as to the values, but leaves

Petitioner to its proofs as to the remainder of the allegations as Respondent lacks the information

necessary to respond

Respondent admits the property is classified commercial. Respondent lacks the

ability to respond to the allegations in Paragraph 4 and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

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

denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit or that Petitioner is entitled to relief in this case.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 6.

Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 7.

Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 8, including all subparagraphs, 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 proper

principles, and the values and Respondent’s mode of assessment are non-discriminatory and

constitutional.

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 Chelsea 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.

Page 3

HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

/s/ Seth A. O’Loughlin______________

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: September 25, 2025

(248) 731-3089

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Respondent City of Chelsea asserts the following affirmative defenses:

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

against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.

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

property’s lawful assessment. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767

(1981).

Petitioner has the burden of establishing the property’s true cash value. See

MCL 205.737(3) and Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612 (1974).

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.

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

Respondent’s taxing unit for the year in question.

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

Page 4

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.

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.

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.

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.

12.

Petitioner has failed to pursue its appeal in a timely fashion.

13.

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

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