Answer Affirm Def & POS - 26-002531.pdf

Capital Storage Brighton LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Brighton Respondent · 26-002531-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 

 

CAPITAL STORAGE BRIGHTON LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 26-002531 

 

PARCEL NO. 4712-32-301-002 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

RESPONSE TO PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

(Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year) 

 

1. 

__ The property that is the subject of this appeal is one real property parcel: 

 

Parcel Number 

4712-32-301-002 

Address 

9986 E. Grand River Ave 

Classification 

201 Comm 

Use 

Storage Facility 

County 

Livingston 

Sch Dist 

Brighton Area Schools 

 

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

 

2. 

_X__N/A If the assessment at issue was protested, the protest was made to 

Respondent’s: 

 

 

 ___ March, ___July, ___December Board of Review. 

 

ANSWER: N/A.

2 

 

3. 

Respondent, identified above, assesses and collects taxes on the subject property. 

ANSWSER: Respondent admits the above allegation. 

4. 

Petitioner is a taxpayer/party-in-interest with respect to property taxes on the subject 

property. 

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 

allegation contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

5. 

The Petitioner’s principal office/legal residence address is: 32820 Woodward Ave., 

Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48073-0977. 

ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegation contained in the 

above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

6. 

This appeal involves issues related to: 

_X__ the subject property's true cash and taxable values 

 

___ 

the subject property’s taxable value only 

 

 there is a dispute as to the value of an addition or loss: __ Yes __ No 

___ 

uniformity of the subject property's assessment 

___ the subject property’s exemption from ad valorem taxation under MCL 

ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to contest the subject 

property’s true cash and taxable values but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have 

merit and asserts that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional 

answers and affirmative defenses. 

 

7. 

The tax year at issue is 2026. 

 

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

8. 

The values1 established by Respondent’s Board of Review for the subject property are: 

 

Parcel Number 

 

TCV 

 

SEV 

 

TV 

4712-32-301-002 

 

5,562,400 

 

2,781,200 

 

2,557,230 

 

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

 

 

1 TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.

3 

 

9. 

Petitioner contends that the values1 for the subject property are: 

Parcel Number 

 

TCV 

 

SEV 

 

TV 

4712-32-301-002 

 

5,000,000 

 

2,000,000 

 

2,000,000 

ANSWER: 

 Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated contentions 

of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts that the 

Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and affirmative 

defenses. 

10. 

The values2 in dispute are. 

Parcel Number 

 

TCV 

 

SEV 

 

TV 

4712-32-301-002 

 

1,562,400 

 

781,200 

 

557,230 

ANSWER: Respondent admits only that Petitioner purports to make the indicated 

contentions of value but denies that Petitioner’s contentions have merit and asserts 

that the Petition should be dismissed, incorporating its additional answers and 

affirmative defenses. 

11. 

Petitioner relies upon the following to support the relief requested: 

The 2026 values imposed on Petitioner's property, and the taxes to be levied and 

collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as fraud upon the taxpayer for 

the reasons that: 

(a) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values exceed the amounts 

permitted by the Michigan Constitution and applicable statutes; 

(b) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are at higher percentages of 

true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution and 

applicable statutes; 

(c) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values are based upon an erroneous 

determination of the true cash value of that portion of Petitioner's prope1ty that 

is taxable under Michigan law and are based upon the application of wrong 

principles; and 

(d) 

The assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values, and the mode of assessment 

adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and deny Petitioner its 

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

 

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

including subparts (a)-(d). 

 

2 TCV=true cash value, SEV=state equalized value, TV=taxable value.

4 

 

 

 

Respectfully Submitted, 

 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

September 11, 2026 

 

 

________________________________ 

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 

 

CAPITAL STORAGE BRIGHTON LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 26-002531 

 

PARCEL NO. 4712-32-301-002 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089 

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

 

Respondent Township of Brighton, 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: September 11, 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 

CAPITAL STORAGE BRIGHTON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

v 

TOWNSHIP OF BRIGHTON, 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 26-002531 

PARCEL NO. 4712-32-301-002 

______________________________________/ 

Laura M. Hallahan (P42101) 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

Attorney for Petitioner 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

(248) 731-3089

lhallahan@hallahanlaw.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 September 11, 2026 she served a copy of Response to 

Property Tax Petition (Entire Tribunal, 2026 Tax Year), Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of 

Service, upon the following via first class mail: 

Laura M. Hallahan 

Hallahan & Associates, P.C. 

1750 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 202 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-0179 

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