24-003722 Recon.pdf

Roger D Jones, Petitioner V Township Of Lake, Respondent · 24-003722-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 

Roger D Jones, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003722 

 

Lake Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On November 15, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on October 30, 2024.1 In the motion, 

Petitioner states the dismissal in this case came after the final decision and closure of 

the case in MTT Docket No. 23-003171 (the 2023 appeal). Petitioner explains that the 

discrepancy was due to the timing issue and that issues related to 2024 remain 

outstanding. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that this appeal was 

properly dismissed as being duplicative to the 2023 appeal. The Tribunal’s Small 

Claims hearing in the 2023 appeal was held on June 7, 2024. The hearing date was 

held after the adoption of Respondent’s assessment roll by its 2024 March Board of 

Review, and as a result, the subsequent tax year of 2024 was automatically included in 

the 2023 appeal.2 Petitioner contends that outstanding issues remain with respect to 

tax year 2024; however, Petitioner is required to request relief as appropriate in the 

2023 appeal. 

 

Given the above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the 

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

disposition if the error was corrected.3 

 

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. 

 

 

1 The Tribunal issued a Notice of No Action on November 18, 2024 because Petitioner did not include 

proof of service of the motion upon Respondent as required by Tribunal rules. On December 2, 2024, 

Petitioner submitted proof that the subject property has a principal residence exemption of greater than 

50% at the time of the commencement of the case, and as a result, Petitioner’s motion is properly 

pending. 

2 MCL 205.737(5). 

3 See MCR 2.119.

MTT Docket No. 24-003722 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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: December 13, 2024 

 

By _______________________________ 

bw/jcr 

 

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