25-002924 Dismiss Res No MBOR.pdf
Brandon Por, Petitioner V Township Of Cato, Respondent · 25-002924-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 Brandon Por, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-002924 Cato Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT ORDER OF DISMISSAL On September 16, 2025, the Tribunal issued an order placing Petitioner in default. In response, on September 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a copy of their petition to the March Board of Review (BOR) and a signed affidavit from Petitioner’s authorized representative stating they never received a copy of the BOR results. The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order holding Petitioner in default because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. BOR decision.1 The pleadings and accompanying documentation indicate that Petitioner is appealing the true cash, state equalized, and taxable values for Parcel No. 59-004-550-047-00 for the 2025 tax year. While Petitioner asserts to having protested to the BOR, Respondent’s answer, filed on October 16, 2025, indicates Respondent never received Petitioner’s protest to the BOR, and thus no BOR decision was made. Therefore, the Tribunal finds good cause to vacate the default order. Moreover, the Tribunal finds it has no authority over this parcel under MCL 205.735a(3), nor any authority over Petitioner’s appeal as a final decision of the BOR is a prerequisite for invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.2 Because Respondent never received Petitioner’s protest to the March BOR, Petitioner failed to complete the prerequisite step of appealing to the BOR and thus failed to invoke the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding. In Sixarp LLC v Byron Twp,3 the Michigan Supreme Court reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is statutory by nature. The Court stated: 1 The order further stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 2 See MCL 205.731. 3 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002924 Page 2 of 3 MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” We therefore overrule Parkview4 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere “procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) 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.5 The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon in Sixarp is applicable in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction prerequisite that a residential valuation be appealed to the March BOR prior to a petition being filed with the Tribunal. MCL 205.735a(3) controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.6 “[S]imply because the plaintiffs' underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and may even be meritorious, does not excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim within the applicable statutory period of limitation.”7 The Tribunal notes that the answer in this case contends that Respondent did not receive Petitioner’s protest to the March BOR. This contention of improper notice, if actionable, would require a determination by an applicable authority that the purported error resulted in a due-process violation. As explained above, the Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. Jurisdiction as a result of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory obligation, if there was any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as a matter of equity.8 Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the September 16, 2025 Order Holding Petitioner in Default is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 4 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 5 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted). 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). 7 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 8 See Sixarp at 4, 8. The court held respectively that “the Court of Appeals remedied the violation by vesting the MTT with jurisdiction to consider the exemption claim as a matter of equity” and that Petitioner was required to demonstrate that Respondent deprived it of its right to constitutional due process to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.)
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 25-002924 Page 3 of 3 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. Entered: November 19, 2025 By _____________________________ kac/jc 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