Answer and Affirmative Defenses - 26-000807.pdf
Owen Road Partners, LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Fenton Respondent · 26-000807-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
1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL OWEN ROAD PARTNERS, LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF FENTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-000807 PARCEL NO. 53-34-300-050 ______________________________________/ Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) Jason C. Long (P59244) Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC Attorneys for Petitioner\ 380 N. Old Woodward Avenue Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 642-0333 jpesick@wwrplaw.com jlong@wwrplaw.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, CITY OF FENTON, by and through its counsel, FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, hereby answers Petitioner’s Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition as follows: The Parties 1. Petitioner Owen Road Partners, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company with its principal place of business in Michigan located at 251 East Merrill Street, Suite 205, Birmingham, Michigan 48009.
Page 2
2 ANSWER: Respondent states that it is without sufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation, which is therefore deemed denied, leaving Petitioner to its proofs. 2. Respondent the City of Fenton is a Michigan city with its principal offices located at 301 S. Leroy St., Fenton, MI 48430. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. The Subject Property 3. Petitioner owns property identified as Parcel No. 53-34-300-050 and commonly known as 3401 Owen Road, Fenton, MI 48430 (the “Subject Property”). ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 4. The Subject Property is located in Genesee County and is within the Fenton Area School District. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 5. Respondent possesses jurisdiction to assess and collect property taxes for the Subject Property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. The 2026 Assessment 6. For the 2026 tax year, Respondent classified the Subject Property as commercial real property. ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained in the above paragraph. 7. For the 2026 tax year, Respondent established the Subject Property’s assessment for property taxes as follows: True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 3,781,600 1,890,800 1,890,800
Page 3
3 ANSWER: Respondent admits the allegation contained the above paragraph. 8. Petitioner contends that a lawful assessment of the Subject Property for the 2026 tax year cannot exceed the following amounts: True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 2,800,000 1,400,000 1,400,000 ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegation contained in the above paragraph. Answering further, 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. 9. The amounts in dispute therefore are as follows: True Cash Value Assessed Value Taxable Value 981,600 490,800 490,800 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. This Petition presents issues involving the Subject Property’s valuation for assessment purposes. Petitioner does not believe that this Petition presents any issues arising out of “additions” or “losses” as the General Property Tax Act, MCL 211.1 et seq. (the “GPTA”), defines those terms, but reserves its right to assert issues involving losses should information supporting such issues become available. 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.
Page 4
4 11. The Subject Property’s 2026 assessment (a) violates the Michigan Constitution, the GPTA, and other Michigan law, (b) is based on erroneous principles and information, (c) is based on the misapplication of valuation principles, and (d) otherwise violates Petitioner’s rights. ANSWER: Respondent denies the allegations contained in the above paragraph and subparagraphs (a) through (d). 12. Petitioner does not assert that the Subject Property’s 2025 assessment is not uniform aside from the lack of uniformity resulting from Respondent overestimating the Subject Property’s values. ANSWER: Respondent states that the subject property’s 2025 assessment is not at issue, 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. Respectfully Submitted, Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC Attorneys for Respondent July 9, 2026 _________________________________________ Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 4151 Okemos Road Okemos, Michigan 48864 (517) 381-0100 Rbower@fsbrlaw.com
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL OWEN ROAD PARTNERS, LLC, Petitioner, v CITY OF FENTON, Respondent. MTT DOCKET No. 26-000807 PARCEL NO. 53-34-300-050 ______________________________________/ Jerome P. Pesick (P29039) Jason C. Long (P59244) Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, PC Attorneys for Petitioner 380 N. Old Woodward Avenue Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 (248) 642-0333 jpesick@wwrplaw.com jlong@wwrplaw.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 City of Fenton, 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 6
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 7
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: July 9, 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