26-000048 recon.pdf
Plymouth United Church Of Christ, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000048-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 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 Plymouth United Church of Christ, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 26-000048 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER REINSTATING CASE ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT On February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 14, 2026. In the motion, Petitioner states that it did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment until December 9, 2025, when the December 2025 Board of Review (BOR) issued an Affidavit of Correction for each of the subject parcels.1 Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 30 days of this decision on January 8, 2026. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has demonstrated 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.2 Specifically, Petitioner failed to indicate in the petition that it was appealing a December 2025 BOR decision. The BOR decisions filed with Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration indicates that the 2025 assessed value (AV) of Parcel No. 03001349 was increased from $0 to 285,200, and that the taxable value (TV) was increased from $0 to $128,581. Similarly, the 2025 AV of Parcel No. 03001350 was increased from $0 to $305,300, and the TV was increased from $0 to $111,435. The stated reasons for the correction are clerical error/mutual mistake of fact and nonprofit exemption denial. Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 35 days of the December 2025 BOR decisions, as required by MCL 205.735a(6),3 and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was properly invoked with respect to those decisions. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the property’s true cash value (TCV) is limited to any errors addressed by the BOR, however, as assessment disputes for commercial properties must be filed with the Tribunal on or 1 Petitioner’s motion erroneously refers to the July BOR. 2 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). 3 The 30-day deadline referenced in the BOR decision is only relevant to poverty exemption denials. See MCL 211.53c.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-000048 Page 2 of 3 before May 31 of the tax year at issue.4 This is true notwithstanding any notice or other due process issues relative to the assessment, as the Michigan Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Tribunal lacks equitable powers and authority to assume jurisdiction in cases when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal have not been met.5 The Court confirmed that this is true even in cases presenting potential due process violations, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body with powers of equity.6 The petition filed in this case is defective for the foregoing reasons, and Petitioner is subject to default pursuant to TTR 237. Petitioner must file an amended Entire Tribunal petition that correctly reflects (1) the basis of the appeal (i.e., the December 2025 BOR decision) and (2) the issues over which the Tribunal’s jurisdiction has been invoked (i.e., the exemption denial and other qualified errors, if any). Petitioner must also file proof evidencing service of the amended Entire Tribunal petition on all required parties-in- interest, as provided by TTR 227(6). Additionally, the filed petition states that “this matter is subject to litigation in the Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 25-015101-CB.” The Tribunal needs additional information relative to the issues pending in that case to determine whether it may have a direct bearing on the outcome of this appeal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REINSTATED. IT IS further ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) File an amended Entire Tribunal petition, (2) file proof of service of the amended Entire Tribunal petition on all required parties-in-interest, (3) file a copy of the complaint filed in Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 25-015101-CB, and (4) file a written statement as to the current status of the circuit court case, with accompanying orders and documentation, if any. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.7 4 Though the BOR decision references clerical error/mutual mistake of fact, the nature of said errors, if any, is unclear. Said errors could potentially relate to the denial of the noted exemption or the TCV that was placed on the roll by the BOR, but the BOR’s jurisdiction is specifically limited to correcting “qualified errors,” as defined by MCL 211.53b(6). 5 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also 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), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 6 Id. 7 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 26-000048 Page 3 of 3 The amended Entire Tribunal petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, must be filed on the assigned docket number as an “amended petition.” Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). Respondent shall file an Entire Tribunal answer within 28 days of service of the amended Entire Tribunal petition. Tribunal rules and information on Entire Tribunal petitions and answers can be found on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Entered: February 19, 2026 By _______________________________ ejg 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 by commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5).