24-003526 Drouse v Garfield Twp.pdf
Rodney E Drouse, Petitioner V Township Of Garfield, Respondent · 24-003526-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 Rodney E Drouse, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003526 Garfield Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Tribunal issued a Proposed Order of Dismissal (POJ) on May 15, 2025. The POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ).” On June 4, 2025, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, Petitioner claimed the Tribunal should be able to grant the relief requested based on the fact that Respondent’s assessor failed to visually inspect the subject property. If an inspection had occurred, the property would have remained agricultural and continued to receive an agricultural exemption. Petitioner also disputed the Tribunal’s finding that “[t]he assessor removed the subject’s qualified agricultural exemption via a classification change on the 2023 Notice of Assessment.” Petitioner alleged that he did not receive the 2023 Notice of Assessment or the 2024 Board of Review decision. Petitioner only discovered that the property was not exempt after reviewing the 2023 summer tax bill. Petitioner was advised that the 2023 July Board of Review would not be able to change the assessment, and Petitioner would need to seek redress at the 2024 March Board of Review. Petitioner asserts that he was only able to obtain a copy of the 2024 Board of Review decision after appearing in-person at the Township’s office. After not receiving relief at the 2024 Board of Review, Petitioner indicated that he met with the assessor and township supervisor and the property’s classification was changed back to agricultural. Finally, Petitioner believes that they should not be penalized for the assessor’s errors. In this case, Respondent was placed in default multiple times and failed to cure the defaults, and the POJ found that Petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Additionally, Petitioner argues that the evidence shows that the building has electricity, the well does not function, and there is no forced air heat. Respondent has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Petitioner’s exceptions.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003526 Page 2 of 5 The Tribunal has considered the exceptions and the case file and finds that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the testimony and evidence submitted in rendering the POJ. The POJ provided the statutory language for MCL 211.7ee, which indicates that the assessor has the authority to deny a qualified agricultural exemption if the assessor determines that the property is not qualified agricultural property. The statute only requires that the assessor notify the property owner in a manner consistent with MCL 211.24c and does not require that the assessor conduct a site inspection prior to denying the exemption request. Moreover, Petitioner has not cited any statute, case, or other authority that would support these claims. Specifically, the POJ stated as follows: Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony and evidence establishes that the subject received the qualified agricultural exemption for many prior years, including 2022, as a result of its prior classification as agricultural property.1 A denial of that exemption status was made by the assessor in the issuance of the 2023 Notice of Assessment indicating that the property classification changed to residential. There was no indication of lack of receipt of that notice. The denial comports to the manner required by statute.2 However, Petitioner did not appeal the denial to the March BOR as required by statute.3 As such, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over tax year 2023. Even if, as alleged by Petitioner, the 2023 Notice of Assessment was not received, a fact that was not alleged prior to or during the hearing, Petitioner submitted a letter from Respondent, dated July 7, 2023, indicating that the classification of the subject property was residential improved and that Respondent had determined that no more than 50% of the acreage for the parcel was devoted to agricultural use. The letter indicates that the State Tax Commission requirements were met by mailing the Notice of Assessment on February 17, 2023. This evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the 2023 tax year. Moreover, Petitioner’s exceptions highlight the fact that Petitioner received notice that the property was not receiving a qualified agricultural exemption based on the 2023 summer tax bill. Petitioner did not file an appeal with the Tribunal until June 13, 2024, to contest the qualified agricultural exemption for the 2023 tax year. The POJ properly indicated that the Tribunal has no equitable power and cannot waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline.4 Without such power, the POJ accurately found that it had no authority to grant Petitioner the relief requested. The POJ further stated that “because there was no exemption on the property denied for tax year 2023, Petitioner was instead required to submit an application claiming the exemption for the assessor by May 1 of the tax year at issue. . . .” In the event that the 1 MCL 211.7ee(2). 2 MCL 211.7ee(7). 3 Id. 4 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).
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003526 Page 3 of 5 2024 exemption request was denied, Petitioner would have had an opportunity to appeal that denial to Respondent’s July or December Board of Review, and potentially further appeal to the Tribunal. Here, Petitioner did not file the required form with Respondent to request an exemption for the 2024 tax year by the statutory deadline. Petitioner’s exceptions do not assert that the required form was, in fact, filed with the assessor on or before May 1, 2024, and there is no evidence in the record that Petitioner made such a filing.5 Therefore, the ALJ appropriately determined that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the exemption claim for the 2024 tax year. In terms of Petitioner’s claims that they received no relief even though Respondent was in default, the Tribunal notes that the POJ provided that, “[o]n November 14, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for failing to file an answer and extended the time to cure the default on December 23, 2024. Respondent failed to cure its default; therefore, the Tribunal scheduled and conducted a default hearing in this case.” TTR 203(e) defines a default hearing as “a hearing at which the defaulted party is precluded from presenting any testimony, offering any evidence, and examining the other party's witnesses.” The Tribunal addressed Respondent’s failure to comply with the Tax Tribunal Rules and orders issued in this case by conducting a default hearing. Even though Respondent did not participate in the hearing, the POJ determined that Petitioner failed to invoke the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the 2023 tax year, and Petitioner did not submit an exemption request for the 2024 tax year. Nothing within Petitioner’s exceptions demonstrates that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the 2023 tax year or that Petitioner completed the necessary form to request an exemption for the 2024 tax year. Finally, in terms of Petitioner’s claims related to the condition of the property, the Tribunal finds that it has no authority over any potential valuation issues presented. The petition form filed in this matter did not indicate Petitioner was appealing the subject property’s value. Petitioner did not raise these valuation issues prior to or at the April 30, 2025 hearing, and instead only addressed the agricultural exemption that was not applied to the subject property. At this stage of the appeal, it is unclear whether Petitioner perfected a valuation appeal, and consideration of Petitioner’s indirect valuation claims is not appropriate because the ALJ did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the value of the subject property. Given the above, Petitioner failed to show good cause to justify modifying the POJ or granting a rehearing.6 As such, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final decision in this case.7 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact 5 Nevertheless, even if Petitioner had made the required filing, MCL 211.7ee(6) expressly provides that “[a]n owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for which an exemption was denied by the assessor in the year the affidavit was filed, may file an appeal with the July board of review for summer taxes or, if there is not a summer levy of school operating taxes, with the December board of review.” The fact that Petitioner may have been advised to appeal to the 2024 March Board of Review would not give the Tribunal jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 6 See MCL 205.762. 7 See MCL 205.726.
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003526 Page 4 of 5 and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. The Tribunal finds that dismissal of this case is warranted.8 IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. This Order resolves the last pending claim 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 record on appeal. There is no certification fee. By _____________________________ Entered: July 30, 2025 smm/gc 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. 8 See MCL 205.726.
Page 5
MTT Docket No. 24-003526 Page 5 of 5 By: Tribunal Clerk