Answer and Affirmative Defenses.pdf

Maxwell A. And Aubrey L. Chartier Petitioner Vs. Township Of Wheatfield Respondent · 26-002309-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

______________________________________

MAXWELL A. AND AUBREY L. CHARTIER,

Petitioner,

MTT Docket No. 26-002309

vs

WHEATFIELD TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent.

______________________________________

Daniel G. Benson (P86017)

Attorney for Petitioner

2145 University Park Drive, Suite 480

Okemos, MI 48864

(517) 908-3203

Thomas M. Hitch (P 25558)

McGINTY, HITCH, PERSON, 

ANDERSON & REVORE, P.C.

Attorneys for Respondent

3410 Belle Chase Way, Suite 600

Lansing, MI 48911

(517) 351-0280

______________________________________

ANSWER TO PETITION AND

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

NOW COMES the Respondent, Wheatfield Township, by and through its Township

Attorney, Thomas M. Hitch of McGINTY, HITCH, PERSON, ANDERSON & REVORE, P.C.,

and in response to the Petition filed by Maxwell A. And Aubrey L. Chartier states as follows:

1.

Admitted.

2.

Admitted.

3.

Not applicable.

4.

That the allegations contained in paragraph 4 are neither admitted nor denied for

the reason that Respondent lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth thereof,

and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

5.

Not applicable.

6.

Admitted.

7.

Admitted.

8.

Not applicable.

9.

Not applicable.

10.

Admitted.

11.

Admitted.

12.

Admitted.

13.

That the allegations contained in paragraph 13 are neither admitted nor denied for

the reason that Respondent lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth thereof,

and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.

14.

Admitted.

15.

Not applicable.

16.

Admitted.

17.

That the allegations contained in paragraph 17 are denied for the reason that they

are untrue. By way of further answer, Respondent asserts that it has performed the assessing

function in a regular and proper manner and has properly determined that the true cash value of

the parcel is $1,500,200, the assessed value is $750,100, and the taxable value is $750,100

18.

That the allegations contained in paragraph 18 are neither admitted nor denied for

the reason that Respondent lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth thereof, 

and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

19. 

That the allegations contained in paragraph 19 are denied for the reason that they 

arc untrue. By way of further answer, Respondent asserts that it has performed the assessing 

function in a regular and proper manner and has properly determined that the true cash value of 

the parcel is $1,500,200, the assessed value is $750,100, and the taxable value is $750.100. 

20. 

That the allegations contained in paragraph 20 are neither admitted nor denied for 

the reason that Respondent lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth thereof, 

and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Tribunal enter a judgment of 

no cause of action in favor of the Respondent and against the Petitioner, and award the 

Respondent its costs. 

MCcGINTY, HITCH, PERSON, 

ANDERSON & REVORE, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Dated: 

Lo21/20 26 

Tone tt. LL 

l4 

Thomas M. Hitch (P 25558) 

3410 Belle Chase Way, Suite 600 

Lansing, MI 48911 

(517) 351-0280

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

NOW COMES the Respondent, and asserts the following affirmative defenses: 

1. 

That Petitioner has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

2. 

That Respondent reserves the right to file such further affirmative defenses as 

disclosed by discovery. 

McGINTY, HITCH, PERSON, 

ANDERSON & REVORE, P.C. 

Attorneys for Respondent 

Duet 

(a/fo, [2526 

hap 

pir JSF 

Thomas M. Hitch (P 25558) 

3410 Belle Chase Way, Suite 600 

Lansing, M1 48911 

(517) 351-0280

← View full record