24-003613 recon.pdf

GraphiteXpress LLC, Petitioner V Township Of Keene, Respondent · 24-003613-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.

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 

GraphiteXpress LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003613 

 

Keene Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On February 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 30, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they did not have any document at the time the appeal was filed 

that would have qualified as a notice giving rise to the appeal. The extension order was 

missed and not discovered by Petitioner until after the case was dismissed. Petitioner 

has now provided a letter from the Keene Township Treasurer. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the 

Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the 

error was corrected.1 Even assuming that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal 

due to Petitioner’s failure to timely cure the default entered on November 15, 2024, 

review of the case file establishes that it lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

 

The Tribunal’s rules of practice and procedure require parties to submit a copy of the 

“notice giving rise to the appeal” because its jurisdiction is limited to proceedings “for 

direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency 

relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or 

equalization, under the property tax laws of this state,” as well as those “for a refund or 

redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this state.”2 The pleadings 

and accompanying documentation filed in this case indicate that Petitioner is appealing 

delinquent taxes for personal property for the 2019-2023 tax years. Petitioner’s appeal 

does not meet any of the foregoing criteria, and though the Tribunal also has jurisdiction 

over “any other proceeding provided by law,”3 it finds no statutory authority granting it 

jurisdiction over delinquent taxes in the absence of a timely filed assessment dispute or 

other appeal in which it has been granted subject matter jurisdiction by the legislature. 

 

1 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

2 Id. 

3 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003613 

Page 2 of 3 

 

While it does not appear that Petitioner disputes the assessments for the tax years at 

issue outside of a claim for exemption under MCL 211.9o, any such appeal would be 

untimely pursuant to MCL 205.735a, which provides that appeals of personal property 

must be filed on or before May 31 of the tax year involved. Additionally, a protest to the 

March Board of Review (BOR) is a perquisite to invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over 

personal property disputes if the taxpayer did not file a personal property statement on 

or before February 20, as required by MCL 211.19.4 The Tribunal would also have no 

authority under MCL 211.53a because the facts alleged do not establish that the 

disputed assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a 

transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., 

“an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).5 And though MCL 

211.53b provides July and December BORs with the authority to correct qualified errors, 

Petitioner did not appear before Respondent’s July or December BOR or appeal an 

action taken by any such board. 

 

Further, while the record indicates that Petitioner is also seeking an exemption under 

MCL 211.9o, it was required, pursuant to the plain language of the statute, to file a claim 

for exemption no later than February 20 of the years in question, or with the March BOR 

before its final adjournment in those years.6 In either case, Petitioner was required to 

file an appeal with the Tribunal no later than May 31 of said years.7 As such, and 

inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a 

statutory requirement or filing deadline, it has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief 

requested.8 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

This Order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be 

filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: March 3, 2025 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

ejg 

 

4 See MCL 205.735a. 

5 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996) and Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006). 

6 Id. 

7 See MCL 205.735a. 

8 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 

253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008).

MTT Docket No. 24-003613 

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 provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

← View full record