25-001898 recon.pdf

Distro 10 Inc, Petitioner Vs. City Of Warren, Respondent · 25-001898-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 

Distro 10 Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

 

City of Warren, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On August 20, 2025, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order Holding Petitioner in Default entered in this case on July 30, 2025, which also 

noted that dismissal of the case was not appropriate despite not being filed within 35 

days of the March Board of Review (BOR) decision because the decision did not cite 

the specific 35-day deadline for eligible manufacturing personal property (EMPP) 

exemption appeals.1 In the motion, Respondent states that the BOR decision did not 

provide any inaccurate appeal information, and Petitioner’s obvious knowledge of MCL 

211.9m and MCL 211.9n (via its request for exemption under said statutes) put it on 

notice of the need to appeal to the Tribunal within 35 days. Further, the Supreme Court 

made it clear in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp,2 that the Tribunal has no equitable power and 

therefore cannot waive a statutory filing deadline; the Supreme Court only examined the 

due process issue in that case to see if the taxpayer could invoke its own judicial power 

to waive the jurisdictional requirements. If Petitioner believes its due process has been 

violated, relief must be sought from a judicial body with powers of equity and the 

authority to consider such constitutional questions. 

 

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

has demonstrated a palpable error relative to the Order Holding Petitioner in Default 

that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different 

disposition if the error was corrected.3 Specifically, upon further review and 

examination of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sixarp, the Tribunal agrees with 

Respondent’s interpretation of that case. The Supreme Court confirmed therein that 

MCL 205.735a “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that governs when 

and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal's jurisdiction.”4 It notably held that the 

protest requirement of MCL 205.735a is not merely a procedural requirement for 

 

1 The BOR decision only referenced the May 31 deadline for commercial properties. 

2 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

3 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). 

4 Sixarp, at 8 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 2 of 4 

 

perfecting an appeal before the Tribunal, but that it is an “express limitation” on its 

jurisdiction.5 The Court further held that this requirement “may only be waived by the 

court if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the 

taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.”6 

 

In so holding, the Supreme Court stated that it agreed with the Tribunal “that it could not 

exercise jurisdiction because the Township's assessor denied the exemption before the 

Board met, and [the taxpayer] failed to file an appeal with the Board.”7 It further stated 

that “the MTT correctly explained that ‘because the Tribunal has no equitable power to 

waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline, it has no 

authority to grant’ [the] exemption request.”8 The Court noted that the Court of Appeals 

had, “as a matter of equity, . . . determined that remand to the MTT was appropriate.”9 

It further noted that it had itself rendered a similar decision in W E Burnside, Inc v 

Bangor Twp,10 and “ordered the MTT to review the merits despite the taxpayer's failure 

to first protest before the Board in a case where the respondent provided no notice of 

the assessment increase to petitioners in advance of the Board's meeting times—

effectively depriving them of the right to be heard.”11 The Court then held that because 

the taxpayer in that case “did not satisfy the statutory requirements for the MTT to 

exercise jurisdiction because it did not protest before the Board,”12 it “must demonstrate 

that respondent deprived it of its right to constitutional due process to invoke this Court's 

judicial power to waive the jurisdictional requirements.”13 

 

Ultimately, the Court’s discussion makes it clear that the Tribunal lacks any equitable 

authority to assume jurisdiction in cases presenting potential due-process violations 

when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal under MCL 205.735a have not 

been met, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only be vested upon the Tribunal by a 

judicial body with powers of equity. The same reasoning applies to the filing and protest 

requirements of MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n, both of which state that “an appeal of a 

denial by the March board of review may be made by filing a petition with the Michigan 

tax tribunal within 35 days of the denial notice.”14 Consequently, while Respondent’s 

arguments relative to the accuracy of the Board of Review decision in this case are 

 

5 Id. (emphasis added). 

6 Id. A close reading of the Court’s opinion reveals that the reference to “the court” was a reference to the 

Supreme Court itself, as it immediately thereafter cited its decisions in Highland-Howell Dev Co, LLC v 

Marion Twp, 478 Mich 932 (2007), W E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp, 402 Mich 950L (1978), and Wikman 

v City of Novi, 413 Mich 617 (1982). 

7 Sixarp, at 5. 

8 Sixarp, at 6. 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). 

9 Sixarp, at 5 (emphasis added). 

10 W E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp, 402 Mich 950L (1978). 

11 Sixarp, at 7. As already noted, the Court also cited to its holdings in Highland-Howell Dev Co, LLC v 

Marion Twp, 478 Mich 932 (2007), W E Burnside, Inc v Bangor Twp, 402 Mich 950L (1978), and Wikman 

v City of Novi, 413 Mich 617 (1982). 

12 Sixarp, at 8. 

13 Id. (emphasis added). 

14 Id.

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 3 of 4 

 

without merit, the Tribunal lacks authority to hear the appeal because it was not filed 

with in 35 days of the Board of Review decision.15 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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 motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, 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 

 

 

 

15 Respondent’s arguments are contradicted by the plain language of MCL 211.30(4), which specifically 

states that “information regarding the right of further appeal to the tax tribunal must include, but is not 

limited to, a statement of the right to appeal to the tax tribunal, the address of the tax tribunal, and the 

final date for filing an appeal with the tax tribunal.” Id. (emphasis added). The statute, which specifically 

references exemption claims under MCL 211.9m and MCL 211.9n, unambiguously requires written notice 

not only of the BOR’s action, but also of the right to appeal the decision, and it explicitly states that the 

notice must include the final date for filing an appeal with the Tribunal. Given that May 31 is not the final 

date for filing an appeal under MCL 211.9m(2)(c) and MCL 211.9n(2)(c), the BOR decision not only 

provides inaccurate information regarding Petitioner’s appeal rights, it also fails to comply with statutorily 

mandated notice requirements.

MTT Docket No. 25-001898 

Page 4 of 4 

 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: September 17, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

ejg/sb 

 

 

 

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