25-002361.pdf

Financial Plus Credit Union, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Davison, Respondent · 25-002361-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.

RECEIVED 

SEP 08 2025 

DELZER 

LEGAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

August 26, 2025 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Chief Clerk 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

FINANCIAL PLUS CREDIT UNION v TOWNSHIP OF DAVISON 

MTT DOCKET NO: 25-002361 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed for filing please find Respondent's Answer and Affirmative Defenses and Proof of Service 

in the above referenced matter. 

Very truly yours, 

DELZER LEGAL 

~ 

William E. Delzer

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

FINANCIAL PLUS CREDIT UNION, 

; 

MOAHR Docket No.: 

Z§-0623b) 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

TOWNSHIP OF DAVISON, 

Respondent. 

DELZER LEGAL 

WARD D. TUBBS 

William E. Delzer (P68488) 

Representative for Petitioner 

Attorney for Respondent 

Jim Tubbs Tax Consultants, LLC 

8332 Office Park Drive, Suite B 

G-8469 S. Saginaw Street 

Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439 

Grand Blanc, MI 48439 

(810) 603-1000 

(810) 444-1779 

wdelzer@delzerlegal.com 

ANSWER TO PETITION AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

NOW COMES Respondent, Township of Davison, by and through their attorney 

William 

E. Delzer, and in response 

to the Petition in this cause, sets forth 

to 

this 

Honorable Tribunal as follows: 

1. 

That 

as an answer 

to paragraph 

1 

of Petition, Respondent admits 

the 

allegations contained therein. 

2. 

That 

as an answer 

to paragraph 

2 

of Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations contained therein. 

3. 

That as an answer to paragraph 3 of Petition, Respondent states no answer is 

required. 

4. 

That as an answer to paragraph 4 of Petition, Respondent states no answer is 

required.

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

That as an answer to paragraph 7 of Petition, Respondent states no answer is 

required. 

That as an answer to paragraph 8 of Petition, Respondent states no answer is 

required. 

That as an answer to paragraph 9 of Petition, Respondent states no answer is 

required. 

That 

as an answer 

to paragraph 

10 of Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations contained therein. 

That 

as 

an answer 

to paragraph 

11 

of Petition, Respondent admits 

the 

allegations contained therein. 

That as an answer to paragraph 12 of Petition, Respondent neither admits nor 

denies the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

That as an answer to paragraph 13 of Petition, Respondent neither admits nor 

denies the allegations contained therein and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

That 

as an answer 

to paragraph 

14 

of Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations contained therein. 

That as an answer to paragraph 15 of Petition, Respondent states no answer is 

required. 

That 

as an answer 

to paragraph 

16 of Petition, Respondent admits the 

allegations contained therein. 

That an answer to paragraph 17 of Petition, Respondent denies the allegations 

contained therein. 

That an answer to paragraph 18 of Petition, Respondent denies the allegations 

contained therein. 

That an answer to paragraph 19 of Petition, Respondent denies the allegations

WHEREFORE, Respondent denies Petitioner's prayer for relief and prays that this 

Honorable Tribunal affirm the 2025 assessment and taxable value of the subject property 

and award Respondent costs, attorney fees and any other relief that this Honorable 

Tribunal may deem appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DELZER LEGAL 

Dated: August 26, 2025 

William E. Delzer (68488) 

Attorney for Respondent

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Respondent, Township of Davison asserts the following affirmation 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 Dev 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 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. 

5. 

Petitioner 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 others, to arrive at the 

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. 

6. 

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. 

7. 

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. 

8. 

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. 

9. 

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 reserve the right to raise additional affirmative defenses as the 

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

WHEREFORE, Respondent prays that this Honorable Tribunal affirm the 2025 

assessment and taxable value of the subject property and award Respondent costs, 

attorney fees and other relief that this Honorable Tribunal may deem appropriate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DELZER LEGAL 

Dated: August 26, 2025 

William E. Delzer (68488) 

Attorney for Respondent

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

FINANCIAL PLUS CREDIT UNION, 

MOAHR Docket No: 25 “0025 (o 

| 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

TOWNSHIP OF DAVISON, 

Respondent. 

DELZER LEGAL 

WARD D. TUBBS 

William E. Delzer (P68488) 

Representative for Petitioner 

Attorney for Respondent 

Jim Tubbs Tax Consultants, LLC 

8332 Office Park Drive, Suite B 

G-8469 S. Saginaw Street 

Grand Blanc, Michigan 48439 

Grand Blanc, MI 48439 

(810) 603-1000 

(810) 444-1779 

wdelzer@delzerlegal.com 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO ENTIRE 

TRIBUNAL TAX PETITION FOR 2025 

I, William E. Delzer, being duly sworn deposes and says that on August 26, 2025 

he served a copy of Respondent's Answer to and Affirmative Defenses to Entire Tribunal 

Tax Petition for 2025 and this proof of service by first class mail to: 

Ward D. Tubbs, Representative for Petitioner, G-8469 S. Saginaw Street, Grand Blanc, 

MI 48439 

by placing in an envelope, addressing it to their address of record with proper postage 

attached and depositing in a US Postal receptacle.

DELZER fi) son 

co 

© 

METROPLEX MI'480 

(J 

“7 

C8 

. 

] 

28 AUG 2025 

PM 5 

8332 Office Park Drive, Suite B 

Grand Blanc, Michigart 48439 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Chief Clerk 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

SESUE-TTIEEE 

[NRRINTE

← View full record