Answer_Z on Sixth_FINAL.pdf
Z On Sixth LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak Respondent · 26-002368-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 Z on Sixth LLC, Petitioner, v City of Royal Oak, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 26-002368 Parcel No. 72-25-21-283-005 _____________________________________________________________________________/ JAY A. SCHWARTZ PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION SERVICES Representative for Petitioner 37887 West Twelve Mile Road, Suite B Farmington Hills, MI 48331 (248) 672-1922 LAURA M. HALLAHAN (P42101) SETH A. O’LOUGHLIN (P80257) KELSEA M. MELCHER (P85821) 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 Royal Oak, 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. 2. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 2. 3. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 3 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required.
Page 2
2 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 4 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 5. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 5 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 7 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 8 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 9 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 10. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 11. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 11. 12. Respondent lacks the information and knowledge necessary to respond to the truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 and, therefore, leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 13. Respondent acknowledges the issues raised by Petitioner in Paragraph 13 but denies that Petitioner’s claims have merit and denies that Petitioner is entitled to relief. 14. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2026 tax year but denies any issue with said year. 15. Respondent neither admits nor denies Paragraph 15 as no allegations are set forth and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are:
Page 3
3 Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 $3,042,640 $1,521.320 $1,521,320 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $3,042,640 $1,521.320 $1,521,320 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2026 $0 $0 $0 19. Respondent acknowledges the relief requested by Petitioner via Paragraph 19 but denies that Petitioner is entitled to such relief for the reasons set forth above. 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. 20. Respondent denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 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. WHEREFORE, Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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 4
4 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher________ 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: August 4, 2026 (248) 731-3089 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Respondent, City of Royal Oak, 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. Alhi Development Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767 (1981). 3. 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). 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 Respondent’s 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
Page 5
5 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. 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. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/ Kelsea M. Melcher____________ 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: August 4, 2026 (248) 731-3089
Page 6
6 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: Jay A. Schwartz Property Tax Reduction Services LLC jschwartz@propertytaxreductionservices.org I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher_________________ Dated: August 4, 2026 Kelsea M. Melcher