24-003526 Default Hrg.pdf

Rodney E Drouse, Petitioner V Township Of Garfield, Respondent · 24-003526-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 

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 FOR DEFAULT HEARING 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Respondent was placed 

in default on November 14, 2024, because Respondent failed to file an answer to the 

petition. The Tribunal extended the time for Respondent to cure the default by an 

additional 14 days on December 23, 2024, and Respondent has failed to respond. 

Respondent has not complied with either order and the latter stated that “failure to 

comply with this Order may result in the scheduling of a default hearing . . .” and 

referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.1 In Grimm, the Michigan Court of Appeals 

summarized factors that the Tribunal should consider before imposing the sanction of 

dismissal. Those factors are: 

 

(1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of 

refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the 

opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) 

the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) 

attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better 

serve the interests of justice.2 

 

Though Grimm was specific to dismissal, the cases cited by the Court and the 

reasoning behind its adoption of the factors set forth therein are not so narrow. The 

factors apply equally to default judgements, or in the case of the Tribunal proceedings, 

the conducting of a default hearing.3 Respondent in this case has failed to respond to 

multiple orders and given this failure, the Tribunal finds that its violation was willful. It 

also establishes a history of deliberate delay and refusing to comply with Tribunal 

orders, both of which have prejudiced Petitioner. As a result, giving careful 

consideration to the factors involved and considering all options in determining what 

sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that scheduling a default hearing is 

 

1 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

2 Id. at 149. 

3 See Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds by Dimmitt & Owens 

Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 (2008), Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501 

(1995), and Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276 (1998).

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 2 of 2 

 

appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice. 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that a default hearing shall be scheduled in the normal course. 

 

 

Entered: January 31, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

smm 

 

 

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