2026.04.08 Answer, Aff Def & POS 26-000463.pdf

The Club On Coleman LLC, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Bath, Respondent · 26-000463-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.

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

THE CLUB ON COLEMAN LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BATH TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 26-000463 

 

PARCEL NO. 010-536-400-010-02 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

______________________________________/ 

ANSWER TO PETITION 

 

Respondent, BATH TOWNSHIP, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH 

RHODES PLC, hereby answers Petitioner’s Petition as follows: 

1. Petitioner's principal office address is 2265 Livernois, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48083. Petitioner is 

a party in interest with respect to property taxes on tax parcel number 010-536-400-010-02 ("Petitioner's Property"), 

at 3850 Coleman Rd. located in Ingham County, Michigan. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits that the subject property includes 3850 Coleman Rd. 

Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving 

Petitioner to its proofs.

2 

 

2. Respondent, Bath Twp., assesses and collects property taxes on Petitioner's Property. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph as true. 

3. In 2026, Respondent determined the taxable value of Petitioner's Property to be $15,076,700 

and assessed Petitioner's Property at $15,076,700, which will result in a state equalized value in the same amount 

based upon the tentative equalization factor. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 

4. Petitioner's Property is classified as Commercial Real. Petitioner's Property is presently used 

or available for use for commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that Petitioner's Property was originally 

designed to be used for commercial purposes. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits Petitioner’s Property is classified as commercial improved, 

real property. As to the remaining allegations and what Petitioner believes, Respondent is 

without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations, which are therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. This matter involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) 

uniformity. 

ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent 

that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the 

above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. At this time, Petitioner believes, as it relates to taxable value, that there is a dispute relative to 

the value of a loss. 

ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner makes the indicated contention but 

denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the Petition should be 

dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative defenses. 

7. No March Board of Review protest was required for Petitioner’s Property.

3 

 

 

ANSWER: Respondent states that the legal conclusions require no answer, and to the extent 

that an answer may be required, neither admits nor denies the factual allegations contained in 

the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

8. The 2026 assessment, including state equalized value and taxable value, imposed on 

Petitioner's Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful for the 

reasons that: 

(a) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, exceeds 

the amount permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, are at 

higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and applicable 

statutes; 

(c) 

The assessment, including taxable value and/or state equalized value, are based 

upon an erroneous determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's Property that is 

taxable under Michigan law, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and, 

(d) 

The assessment, including state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the 

mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and due process of law. 

ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and 

subparagraphs a. through d.

Respectfully Submitted, 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

April 8, 2026 

AT 

Ross K Bower II (P70574) 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

THE CLUB ON COLEMAN LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BATH TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 26-000463 

 

PARCEL NOS. 010-536-400-010-02 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

 

RESPONDENT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent Bath Township, by and through its attorneys, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH 

RHODES PLC, states as follows for its Affirmative Defenses: 

1. Petitioner failed to state a claim for which its requested relief, or any other relief, may 

be granted. 

2. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s conduct renders it estopped or otherwise barred 

from asserting the claims presented in the Petition. 

3. If the proofs shall show, Petitioner’s claim is barred by the applicable statute(s) of 

limitations, laches, and/or undue delay.

2 

 

4. Petitioner’s legal theories and requested relief are either not recognized as valid under 

Michigan law or have no application to the facts of this case. 

5. Some or all of Petitioner’s claims and requests for relief are barred on jurisdictional or 

jurisprudential grounds as moot, not ripe, and/or not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction 

and authority. 

6. There is no issue of material fact, and Respondent is entitled to the dismissal of the 

Petition in its entirety and with prejudice. 

7. Petitioner waived any right to assert the claims presented in the petition, or its claims 

are otherwise barred in whole or in part, by lack of standing, failure to be the real party 

in interest, agreement, consent, acquiescence, ratification, course of conduct or 

performance, promissory and/or other estoppel, misrepresentation, release, 

abandonment, or violation of law. 

8. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish fraud, error of 

law, discrimination, the application of wrong principles, or illegality on the part of 

Respondent. 

9. Petitioner may have failed to allege specific facts sufficient to support its allegation 

that the assessed value of the subject property, as equalized, is at a level other than 50% 

of the subject property’s true cash value or that the subject property’s taxable value is 

incorrect. 

10. Petitioner has asked this Tribunal to grant it an illegal preference by application of a 

method of assessment different that that utilized in the assessment of other properties 

in Respondent’s taxing unit, thereby shifting an otherwise equitable tax burden to 

Respondent’s remaining taxpayers.

3 

 

11. Respondent acted lawfully pursuant to the applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and 

guidelines. 

12. Petitioner’s characterization of the assessment(s) and taxes is contrary to law and 

refuted by documentary evidence. 

13. Respondent reserves the right to amend and supplement these affirmative defenses as 

facts are learned through continuing investigation and discovery and as the Tribunal 

permits. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: April 8, 2026 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

By: __________________________________ 

 Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

 4151 Okemos Road 

 Okemos, MI 48864 

 (517) 381-0100

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

THE CLUB ON COLEMAN LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

BATH TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 26-000463 

 

PARCEL NOS. 010-536-400-010-02 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) 

Honigman LLP 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

(313) 465-7420 

slmandell@honigman.com 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jamy A. Staffeld states that on April 8, 2026 she served a copy of Answer to Petition, 

Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: 

 

 

Stewart L. Mandell 

Honigman LLP 

39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 

 

 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and 

 

belief. 

/s/ Jamy A Staffeld 

 

Jamy A. Staffeld

← View full record