2026.09.02 Answer Aff Def & POS - 26-001489.pdf
Kava Alma Petitioner Vs. Township Of Pine River Respondent · 26-001489-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 AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL KAVA ALMA, Petitioner, v PINE RIVER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001489 PARCEL NO. 12-027-016-10 ______________________________________/ Joshua T. Shillair Colliers International Representative for Petitioner 400 W. 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248)226-1632 Joshua.shillair@colliers.com Karen.cameron@colliers.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 ______________________________________/ ANSWER TO ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION Respondent, PINE RIVER TOWNSHIP, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, hereby answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: 1. The Petitioner in this matter, KAVA ALMA, has the legal residence or principal office address of 200 W ADAMS ST STE 2950, CHICAGO, IL 60606. Petitioner is a party in interest with respect to property taxes on property parcel no(s). (hereinafter referenced as the Subject Property) 12-027-016-10. If the Subject Property in this petition includes more than one (1) real property tax parcel, the Subject Property's tax parcels are contiguous. ANSWER: Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs.
Page 2
2 2. The Subject Property is located in Gratiot County. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 3. Respondent, Pine River Township of Gratiot County, assesses and collects property taxes on the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 4. The Subject Property is real property and is classified as Commercial. The Subject Property is presently used or available for use for Commercial purposes. Petitioner believes that the Subject Property was originally designed to be used for Commercial purposes. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegations contained in the above paragraph as to classification and use. Answering further, Respondent can neither admit nor deny what Petitioner believes and therefore leaves Petitioner to its proofs as to the remaining allegations in the above paragraph. 5. Protest to the 2026 Board of Review was not made and is not required by law for 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 allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 6. The Subject Property's address is: 7642 N ALGER RD, ALMA, MI 4880l ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. This appeal involves issues relating to: (a) valuation, (b) assessment, (c) taxable value and (d) uniformity.
Page 3
3 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 allegations contained in the above paragraph and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 8. The tax year(s) at issue are: 2026 ANSWER: Respondent admits that Petitioner purports to contest the subject property’s true cash and taxable values for the 2026 tax year. 9. The values for the Subject Property as established by Respondent's Board of Review are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 12-027-016-10 $629,800.00 $314,900.00 $302,862.00 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph as to True Cash and Assessed Values and states that the 2026 Assessed Value is $318,000 and the 2026 True Cash Value is $636,000. Respondent admits that the 2026 Taxable Value is $302,862. 10. The 2026 assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value imposed upon all parcels of the Subject Property, and the taxes to be levied and collected thereon, are invalid and unlawful and operate as a fraud upon the taxpayer for the reasons that: a. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value exceeds the amounts permitted by the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; b. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value are at higher percentages of true cash value than permissible under the Michigan Constitution, applicable statutes and case law; c. The assessment, assessed value,. state equalized value and/or taxable value are based upon an erroneous defemination of the true cash value of that portion of the
Page 4
4 Subject Property that is taxable under Michigan Jaw, and are based upon the application of wrong principles; and d. The assessment, assessed value, state equalized value and/or taxable value, and the mode of assessment adopted by Respondent, discriminate against Petitioner and denies Petitioner its constitutional rights to uniformity, equal protection and dues process of law. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph, including subparts (a) – (d). 11. Petitioner contends that the actual values for the Subject Property are: Tax Year Parcel Number True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2026 12-027-016-10 $204,000.00 $102,000.00 $102,000.00 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. 12. The amount of value in contention for the Subject Property is: Tax Year Parcel Number Assessed Value in Contention 2026 12-027-016-10 $212,900.00 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. 13. Petitioner relies on the following specific facts to support the relief requested: Market sales and income data indicates that the subject property's assessed value, state equalized value and taxable value exceed 50% of its actual market value. In addition, the cost less depreciation method Respondent utilizes to establish the Subject Property's assessment at issue is not related to the Subject Property’s actual market value.
Page 5
5 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent September 2, 2026 ________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL KAVA ALMA, Petitioner, v PINE RIVER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001489 PARCEL NO. 12-027-016-10 ______________________________________/ Joshua T. Shillair Colliers International Representative for Petitioner 400 W. 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248)226-1632 Joshua.shillair@colliers.com Karen.cameron@colliers.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 Pine River Township, 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.
Page 7
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.
Page 8
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 2, 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
Page 9
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL KAVA ALMA, Petitioner, v PINE RIVER TOWNSHIP, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-001489 PARCEL NO. 12-027-016-10 ______________________________________/ Joshua T. Shillair Colliers International Representative for Petitioner 400 W. 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 (248)226-1632 Joshua.shillair@colliers.com Karen.cameron@colliers.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 2, 2026 she served a copy of Answer to Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition, Affirmative Defenses, and this Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: Joshua T. Shillair Colliers International 400 W. 4th Street, Suite 350 Royal Oak, MI 48067 I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. /s/ Jamy A Staffeld Jamy A. Staffeld