251222 Motion to Set Aside Default w_POS.pdf
Fossores, Petitioner Vs. City Of Jackson, Respondent · 24-004252-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
iB STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR FOSSORES , MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner(s) v MTT Docket No._24-004252 CITY OF JACKSON Respondent(s) MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 1. A default was entered against me on 11/07/2025 and, if applicable, the default was extended on 12/12/2025 2. Good cause exists to set aside the default because: See Attachment to Motion to Set Aside Default. 3. | ask this Tribunal to set aside the default. Re lll. penasy TE here) Ryan L. Phillips [Print/type name of person signing] | certify that on this date | served a copy of this Motion, and any additional documentation, on the opposing party or their representative. 2\ao\a— \o AA Ls Date (sign here) 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
Page 2
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPT. OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFIRAS FOSSORES, a domestic nonprofit corporation, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL, ENTIRE TRIBUNAL MOAHR docket no. 24-004252 CITY OF JACKSON, Respondent. Ryan L. Phillips PC City of Jackson Ryan L. Phillips P73731 Mark M. Porterfield P57917 Attorney for Petitioner Attorney for Respondent 180 W Michigan Ave., suite 603 161 W Michigan Ave. Jackson, M149201 Jackson, M1 49201 (517) 796-3907 (517) 788-4050 @philli batel field@cityofiack ATTACHMENT TO MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT FACTUAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Order Severing 2024 and 2025 Tax Years and Assigning to Docket Number 24-004252, Petitioner filed its Entire Tribunal Property Tax Petition on November 3, 2025. At that time, Petitioner's Paralegal sent a copy of said Petition to Counsel for Respondent, Attorney Mark M. Porterfield. On November 5, 2025, this Honorable Court issued its Notice of Docket Number. That Notice of Docket Number provided Petitioner with 45 days to serve interested persons. That Notice of Docket Number provided that a new proof of service must be filed even if one was already filed with the Petition. Still, only 2 days later, this Honorable Court issued its Order of Default. No additional proof of service had been filed as required by the Notice of Docket Number (where 43 days remained during which that service could be perfected). This Order of Default was apparently based on a November 3, 2025 Proof of Service despite the November 5, 2025 Notice of Docket Number instructing that another proof of service must be filed in any event.
Page 3
The Court held Petitioner in default despite there being then 43 days left to serve interested persons pursuant the Court’s Notice of Docket Number. Counsel for Petitioner instructed his Paralegal to serve the Clerk of the City of Jackson as well as other interested persons according to MTT Rules. Petitioner’s office (180 W Michigan Ave., Jackson, Ml) is directly across the street from City Hall in Jakson (161 W Michigan Ave., Jackson, Ml) and Counsel for Petitioner instructed his Paralegal to serve the Clerk of the City of Jackson by personal service. Counsel for Petitioner’s Paralegal did serve the Clerk of the City of Jackson on November 10, 2025, and prepared and filed her Proof of Service." This Honorable Court entered its Order Extending Time for Petitioner to Cure Default on December 12, 2025. At that time, 8 days remained in the time for service provided by the Court in its Notice of Docket Number. All interested persons were served pursuant to MTT Rule on December 16, 2025, where 4 days remained in the time for service provided by the Court in its Notice of Docket Number.? DISCUSSION OF GOOD CAUSE This Honorable Court set forth its expectations of Petitioner in its November 5, 2025 Notice of Docket Number then, without any intervening action by Petitioner, sua sponte held Petitioner in default in its November 7, 2025, Order of Default, only 2 days later. In in re Baby Boy Doe (Kruithoff v. Catholic Charities of West Michigan), the Michigan Court of Appeals held it was “plain error affecting substantial rights” for two circuit courts (Ottawa and Kalamazoo) to enter conflicting orders even though the one was not aware of the other. In re Baby Boy Doe, 338 Mich App 571, 590; 980 NW2d 513 (2021). Petitioner in the present case has been given conflicting instructions by the very same court. The conflicting instructions given to Petitioner by this Honorable Court have led to confusion in Counsel for Petitioner’s office as to Petitioner's requirements for service upon interested persons. Michigan law favors the determination of claims based on their merits and on properly entered defaults. Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 600 NW2d.638 (1999). The Order of Default entered against Petitioner was not proper in that it conflicted with other directions received from this Honorable Court. Counsel for Petitioner ' In preparing this Motion to Set Aside Default Counsel for Petitioner discovered that service was by first-class mail. 2The Clerk of the City of Jackson was served again by certified mail on December 16, 2025.
Page 4
was entitled to rely on and reasonably relied on this Honorable Court’s Notice of Docket Number in his calendaring in this matter such that he may timely attend to all matters entrusted to him, and it would be error by this Honorable Court to not set aside the default on that basis. CONCLUSION As of the date of this Motion to Set Aside Default, Petitioner has provided proper service to all interested persons and provided good cause to set aside this Honorable Court's Order of Default. WHEREFORE, Petitioner is without relief except in this Honorable Court. Petitioner requests the Court SET ASIDE its Order of Default and allow Petitioner to seek relief on the merits of its case.