Answer_Main&Fifth_FINAL.pdf
Main & Fifth Ventures LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Royal Oak, Respondent · 25-002448-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 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL MAIN & FIFTH VENTURES LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF ROYAL OAK, Respondent. MTT Docket No. 25-002448 Parcel No. 72-25-22-151-001 _____________________________________________________________________________/ STEPHEN POLTER POLTER LAW GROUP Attorney for Petitioner 2600 W. Big Beaver, Suite L100 Troy, MI 48084 (248) 213-6800 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 the allegations in Paragraph 3 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 4. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 5. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required.
Page 2
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 2 of 5 6. Respondent admits the allegations in Paragraph 6. 7. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 8. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 9. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 9 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 10. Respondent admits the subject property is located in Oakland County and identified the subject property’s address as 501 S. Main Street, Royal Oak, MI. 11. Respondent admits the assessment identified at issue was established by the City of Royal Oak. 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 Petitioner’s beliefs as to the issues in this appeal but denies that those issues have merit and further denies that Petitioner is entitled to any relief. 14. Respondent acknowledges Petitioner’s belief as to an issue with the 2025 tax year but denies any issue with the identified tax year. 15. Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 for the reason that no statement is made and, thus, no responsive pleading is required. 16. The values for the property identified above as established by Respondent’s Board of Review are: Tax Year True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2025 $3,111,140 $1,555,570 $1,555,570 17. Respondent contends that the values for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 $3,111,140 $1,555,570 $1,555,570 18. The values in dispute for the property identified above are: Tax Year True Cash Value State Equalized Value Taxable Value 2025 $0 $0 $0
Page 3
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 3 of 5 19. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested in Paragraph 19 for the reason that Petitioner’s amounts do not reflect the accurate valuations for this property. In further answer, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for 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 attached BOV offers credible support for the value contentions set forth by Petitioner nor does it offer credible support for any type of reduction in the subject property’s 2025 assessment. Furthermore, the assessed, state equalized and/or taxable values do not exceed permitted amounts, do not exceed the percentage for 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. HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan_________________ 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: September 5, 2025 (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).
Page 4
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 4 of 5 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 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.
Page 5
Entire Tribunal Property Tax Answer Page 5 of 5 HALLAHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. /s/Laura M. Hallahan______________ 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 Date: September 5, 2025 (248) 731-3089 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: Stephen Polter Polter Law Group spolter@polterlaw.com I declare that the statement above is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. /s/Kelsea M. Melcher_________________ Dated: September 5, 2025 Kelsea M. Melcher