Michigan

Hidden Valley Apartments LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Springfield Respondent

Petitioner: Hidden Valley Apartments LLC
Respondent: Township Of Springfield

Case overview

Docket number: 26-002631-TT
Status: Ready Sched Prehearing Date Certain
CaseType: ET Property
Division: ET
County: Oakland
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
6	Prehearing General Call	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/01/2026	Not recorded	Download
5	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	08/21/2026	Not recorded	Download
Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Not recorded	Download
4	Proof of service of petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	08/19/2026	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	07/11/2026	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number ET	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/11/2026	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	05/13/2026	$400.00	Download

Documents

Prehearing_General_Call.2026-10-01_08-58-43.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N GRAND RIVER AVE, LANSING, MI 48906

NOTICE OF SEPTEMBER 1- 15, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER

OF PROCEDURE

Hidden Valley Apartments LLC,

Petitioner,

Township Of Springfield,

Respondent.

MTT Docket No. 26-002631

Please be advised that 26-002631 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General

Call commencing September 01, 2027. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be

notified at least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not

necessarily occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure”

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing

for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A party, representative, or interested

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages

of the Tribunal’s website.

Please refer to the Tribunal’s FAQs and Glossary of Terms pages on the Tribunal’s

website for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-002631

Page 2 of 3

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall:

a. If no valuation disclosure is required, notify the Tribunal and the opposing parties

in writing within 21 days of entry of this order that no valuation disclosure is being

filed. The notice shall indicate the reason or reasons why no valuation disclosure

is required (i.e., exemption claim, etc.).

b. If a valuation disclosure is required, file and exchange their valuation disclosures

by May 5, 2027. Valuation disclosures will not be admitted into evidence unless

disclosed and furnished in accordance with this order (even though admissible)

except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file and exchange their Prehearing

Statements by May 5, 2027. Witnesses, with the exception of rebuttal witnesses, will

not be allowed to testify unless disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the

Prehearing Statement is furnished in accordance with this order except upon a finding

of good cause by the Tribunal. Failure to file the Prehearing Statement may result in

holding a party or parties in default. See TTR 237.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on

May 5, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to Compel

have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged by that

date. Discovery relative to the valuation disclosure prepared for purposes of litigating

this case or the valuation expert that prepared that valuation disclosure is not permitted

during “Pre-Valuation Disclosure” discovery.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is CLOSED on

September 1, 2027, which means all discovery has been requested, all Motions to

Compel have been filed, and all requested or ordered discovery has been exchanged

by that date. “Post-Valuation Disclosure” discovery is limited to the opposing party’s

valuation disclosure, the opposing party’s valuation expert, and the witnesses identified

on the opposing party’s Prehearing Statement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this case is not scheduled for a date certain

prehearing conference during the time frame indicated it may be scheduled for a date

certain prehearing conference at any time subsequent to the completion date for this

Prehearing General Call. Parties will, however, be notified in writing approximately one

week before they are scheduled to appear.

By:_____________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 1, 2026

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 26-002631

Page 3 of 3

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N GRAND RIVER AVE, LANSING, MI 48906

NOTICE OF SEPTEMBER 1- 15, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND

Page 5

MTT

Page 6

MTT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Answer to Petition - Property Tax Cons. Hidden Valley 8.21.26.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

PROPERTY TAX CONSULTANTS FOR 

HIDDEN VALLEY APARTMENTS LLC, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-002631 

v. 

 

SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP, 

 

 

Respondent. 

 

Property Tax Consultants 

Jon Aylsworth 

Representative for Petitioner 

861 Pincrest Ave SE 

Grand Rapids, MI 49056 

(269) 366-0300 

jack@syklinepropertytax.com 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

 & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

Jeremy J. Romer (P77287) 

Gopi P. Patel (P77727) 

Attorney for Respondent 

27555 Executive Drive 

Suite 250 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3550 

(248) 489-4100 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

gpatel@rsjalaw.com 

 

 

Respondent's Answer to Petition 

 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Springfield Township, by and through its Attorneys, 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH & AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. and for its Answer to Petitioner's 

Petition states as follows: 

1. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Petition, Respondent 

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict 

proofs. 

2. 

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition, Respondent 

admits the same.

Page 2

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Petition, Respondent

admits only the parcel identification number, the property address, and that the subject

property is presently classified as commercial. As to the remaining allegations stated therein,

Respondent neither admits nor denies them for the reason it is without sufficient knowledge

to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Petition, Respondent

admits the same.

As to the allegation contained in Paragraph 5 of the Petition, Respondent

admits the same.

As to the allegation contained in Paragraph 6 of the Petition, Respondent

admits the same.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Petition, Respondent

neither admits nor denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict

proofs.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, Respondent

denies the same as untrue.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, Respondent neither admits nor

denies the same for the reason Respondent is without sufficient knowledge to form a belief

as to the truth thereof and therefore leaves Petitioner to its strict proofs.

10.

As to the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Petition, Respondent

denies the same as untrue.

11.

Respondent further states the ratio of the average level of assessment in

relation to true cash value in the assessment district is 50%, and the equalization factor was

uniformly applied in the assessment district for the year in question.

Page 3

3 

 

WHEREFORE, Respondent, Springfield Township, denies that Petitioner is entitled 

to the relief it seeks and respectfully requests that the Respondent's assessment and taxable 

value of the subject property be affirmed or increased, that Petitioner's Petition be dismissed 

with prejudice and that Respondent be granted costs and attorney fees so wrongfully 

sustained. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROSATI, SCHULTZ, JOPPICH 

& AMTSBUECHLER, P.C. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s/ Jeremy J. Romer 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JEREMY J. ROMER (P77287) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27555 Executive Drive, Suite 250 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmington Hills, MI 48331 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(248) 489-4100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

jromer@rsjalaw.com 

 

Dated: August 21, 2026

Page 4

Affirmative Defenses

For its further Answer to Petitioner's Petition and by way of its Affirmative Defenses,

Respondent states as follows and demands an answer from Petitioner as to each:

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to set forth a cause of

action against Respondent and to support its claim for relief.

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish fraud, error of

law, discrimination, application of wrong principles or illegality on the part of the

Respondent.

Petitioner fails to allege that the mode and method of appraising its property

failed to conform with the mode and method applied in the case of all of the properties in the

Respondent's taxing unit for the year in question.

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to establish the true cash

value, assessed value and taxable value of its property.

Petitioner fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegation

that the assessed value of its property, as equalized, is at a factor other than 50% and also

fails to allege specific and sufficient facts to support its allegations that the property's taxable

value is improper.

Petitioner fails to show that any rate other than 50% after equalization was

applied to the true cash value of its property, as well as to the properties of all others to arrive

at the respective equalized assessments.

Petitioner, in essence, asks that this Honorable Tribunal grant it an illegal

preference by application of a method of assessment different from that employed in the

assessment of other properties in the Respondent's taxing unit.

Petitioner, in essence, seeks by Petition to challenge the process of county and

state equalizations as to which it has no legal standing and cannot maintain a cause of action.

Page 5

5 

 

 

9. 

If Petitioner appeared at the Board of Review, Petitioner failed in its 

appearance before the Board of Review to specifically allege: 

A. 

The equalized assessment of the property is more than 50% of its true 

cash value and that the taxable value is in violation of applicable 

statutory and constitutional limitations. 

 

B. 

The property is

Page 6

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

EntireTribunalCaseISAnswer.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MTT DOCKET NO. 26-002631

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: 

Local Unit of Government

Local Unit of Government

Township Of Springfield (OAKLAND)

First Name

M.I.

Last Name

Home Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

City or Town

State

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

 

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Jeremy

M.I.

J

Last Name

Romer

Firm Name (if any)

Rosati, Schultz, Joppich & Amtsbuechler, P.C.

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route)

27555 Executive Drive

Suite 250

City or Town

Farmington Hills

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

48331

Telephone Number

248-489-4100

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail)

jromer@rsjalaw.com

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Jeremy J. Romer

/s/

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

26-002631.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AW 

| 

AUG 19 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

PROPERTY TAX 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

August 14, 2026 

RE: 

Notice of Docket Number for Entire Tribunal petition at Michigan Tax Tribunal 

MTT Docket# 

__#6- 0ogdg 3 / 

Enclosed please find a copy of the petition co taining the docket number assigned by the 

Michigan Tax Tribunal, proof of service and copies of additional required documentation for the 

above captioned matter. 

‘ 

Very truly yours, 

n Aylsworth 

JA/ac 

Enclosures

Page 2

STATE 5 F 

F 

MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Hidden Valley Apsrtments LLC 

| 

Petitioner 

\% 

i 

PETITION 

MTT Docket # 26-002631 

Springfield Township 

| 

Respondent 

PROOF oF SERVICE| 

Jon Aylsworth, deposes and says that on August 2 

above-captioned matter upon: 

4 2026 he served a copy of the Petition relative to the 

Via certified mail, return receipt requested, with proper postage affixed thereto, 

Assessor, Springfield Township 

12000 Davisburg Road, Davisburg,; 

Clerk, Springfield Township 

12000 Davisburg Road, Davisburg 

MI 48350 

MI 48350 

Via United States First-Class mail with proper postage affixed thereto. 

Clerk, Oakland County 

1200 N Telegraph Rd, Pontiac, MI 

Director of Equalization, Oakland County 

1200 N Telegraph Rd, Pontiac, MI 

Secretary of School Board, Clarkston Publ; 

6389 Clarkston Rd, Clarkston, MI 48346 

48341 

4834] 

¢ School Distict 

Secretary of School Board, Oakland Internjediate School District 

2111 Pontiac Lake Road, Waterford: 

State Treasurer, Michigan Department of Ti 

430 W. Allegan, Lansing, MI 4892 

Clerk of the Court, Michigan Tax Tribunal: 

P.O. Box 30232, Lansing, MI 48909 

, MI 48328 

treasury 

9)

Page 3

RECEIVED 

ly 

| 

MAY 13 2026 

PROPERTY TAX 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CONSULTANTS 

i 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

May 13, 2026 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Hidden Valley Apartments LLC 

Parcel # U-07-03-177-006, v. Springfield Township 

i 

Dear Clerk, 

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Petition and Pra of of Service for filing in the above captioned matter. 

Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $400 100 representing the filing fee in this matter, 

Very truly yours, 

Enclosures

Page 4

STATE

OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Property Tax Consultants for Hidden Valley Apaitments LLC,

MTT Docket No. 26-002631

Springfield Township,

PETITION

Petitioner, Hidden Valley Apartments LLC, throu gh their agent, Property Tax Consultants, petitions this

Tribunal as follows:

Petitioner is Hidden Valley Apartments LLC, whose principal office or address is 477 Ball St,

Ortonville, MI 48462.

Respondent, Springfield Township, establ shes levies and collects the property taxes on the

subject property,

The property identification is # U-07-03-107-006, and the subject property address is 10660 E

Holly Rd, Davisburg, MI 48350. The property is classified as commercial, real property.

Petitioner’s Property is presently used for commercial. Petitioner believes that Petitioners

Property was originally designed to be used for commercial.

The property is located in Oakland County and the school districts of Clarkston Public and the

Oakland Intermediate School District and Qakland Comthunity College.

This matter involves issues relating to the

true cash and taxable values for the parcel referenced

above for the 2026 tax year.

For tax year 2026, Respondent’s Board of Review determined an assessed value of $826,250 a

state equalized value of $826,250 and a taxable value of $826,250.

Petitioner appealed at the 2026 March Board of Review and the requested relief was denied.

The 2026 values set by the respondent are hvalid and unlawful as they exceed the amount

allowed by Michigan law and the Michigan Constitution and do not reflect the true cash value of

the fee simple interest as of the applicable ax date.

Petitioner contends the true cash value of the subject property is $990,000 which would yield a

state equalized value of $495,000 and the taxable value is' $495,000. The amount in contention is

$331,250 fo

Page 5

Dated: May 13, 2026 

By: 

A 

Jon Aylsworth, Property Tax Consultants 

861 Pinecrest AVe SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 

269-366- 0300 

| jack@skylinepropertytax. com

Page 6

Property Tax Consultants 

861 Pinecrest Ave SE 

Grand Rapids, Mi 49506 

Michigan Tax Tribunal

ATTN: Clerk 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, Mi 48909 

USPS TRACKING® # 

BIRO 

J 

9534 6123 9537 6226 6167 27

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Hidden Valley Apartments LLC.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

AW 

AY 13205 (5 

PROPERTY TAX 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

CONSULTANTS 

YOUR PROPERTY TAX EXPERTS SINCE 1989 

May 13,2026 

Clerk of the Court 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: 

Property Tax Consultants for Hidden Valley Apartments LLC 

Parcel # U-07-03-177-006, v. Springfield Township 

Dear Clerk, 

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Petition and Proof of Service for filing in the above captioned matter. 

Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $400.00 representing the filing fee in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

/] 

A 

YA7ac 

Enclosures

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Property Tax Consultants for Hidden Valley Apartments LLC,

MTT Docket No.

Springfield Township,

PETITION

Petitioner, Hidden Valley Apartments LLC, through their agent, Property Tax Consultants, petitions this

Tribunal as follows:

Petitioner is Hidden Valley Apartments LLC, whose principal office or address is 477 Ball St,

Ortonville, MI 48462.

Respondent, Springfield Township, establishes levies and collects the property taxes on the

subject property.

The property identification is # U-07-03-177-006, and the subject property address is 10660 E

Holly Rd, Davisburg, MI 48350. The property is classified as commercial, real property.

Petitioner’s Property is presently used for commercial. Petitioner believes that Petitioner’s

Property was originally designed to be used for commercial.

The property is located in Oakland County and the school districts of Clarkston Public and the

Oakland Intermediate School District and Oakland Community College.

This matter involves issues relating to the true cash and taxable values for the parcel referenced

above for the 2026 tax year.

For tax year 2026, Respondent’s Board of Review determined an assessed value of $826,250 a

state equalized value of $826,250 and a taxable value of $826,250.

Petitioner appealed at the 2026 March Board of Review and the requested relief was denied.

The 2026 values set by the respondent are invalid and unlawful as they exceed the amount

allowed by Michigan law and the Michigan Constitution and do not reflect the true cash value of

the fee simple interest as of the applicable tax date.

Petitioner contends the true cash value of the subject property is $990,000 which would yield a

state equalized value of $495,000 and the taxable value is $495,000. The amount in contention is

Page 3

Dated: May 13, 2026 

By: 

[— 

Jon sory oe Tax Consultants 

861 PinecrestAve SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506 

269-366-0300 

| jack@skylinepropertytax.com

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Property Tax Consultants for: Hidden Valley Apartments LLC 

Petitioner 

\% 

PETITION 

Springfield Township 

Respondent 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jon Aylsworth, deposes and says that on May 13, 2026 he served a copy of the Petition relative to the 

above-captioned matter upon: 

Clerk of the Court, Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Via hand delivery. 

fot 

Jon gyn

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

ET_Notice_of_Docket_Number.2026-07-11_12-39-21.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Hidden Valley Apartments LLC,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

MTT Docket No.: 26-002631

Township Of Springfield,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition.

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice.

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: July 11, 2026

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized

representatives.