Response to Petit Mot for Default.pdf

Jeffrey Kovacik Petitioner V Township Of Harrison Respondent · 26-000850-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.

KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING SYSTEM 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

JEFFREY KOVACIK, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

-vs- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No: 26-000850-TT 

 

TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON, 

 

 

Respondent. 

_____________________________________________________________________/ 

JEFFREY KOVACIK 

Petitioner 

38886 Pardee Street 

Harrison Township, MI 48045 

(616) 401-1833 

kovakservices@gmail.com 

 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC 

ROBERT S. HUTH, JR. (P42531) 

ROSEMARY DAVIS (P47336) 

Attorneys for Respondent 

19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 

(586) 412-4900 

rdavis@kirkhuthlaw.com 

_____________________________________________________________________/ 

 

RESPONDENT, TOWNSHIP OF HARRISON’S, RESPONSE TO PETITIONER, 

JEFFREY KOVACIK’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

 

NOW COMES, the Township of Harrison (“Respondent”), by and through its attorneys, 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC, and for its Response to Petitioner’s Motion 

for Default, states as follows: 

I. 

DEFAULT IS UNWARRANTED BECAUSE RESPONDENT MAILED ITS 

ANSWER ON AUGUST 27, 2026, CURING ANY POTENTIAL DEFICIENCY 

 

Petitioner requests to hold Respondent in default for allegedly failing to file a timely 

answer. Under TTR 281(1) (R 792.10281), an answer must be filed within 28 days after the 

Tribunal serves the Notice of Docket Number on the respondent. TTR 205(1) (R 792.10205) 

excludes the first day when calculating that period and includes the last day unless it falls on a

2 

KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . 

Saturday, Sunday, or state legal holiday, in which case the deadline continues through the next 

day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or state legal holiday. 

 

For mailed submissions, TTR 225(5) (R 792.10225) provides that the filing date is the 

date shown by the United States Postal Service postmark. If the envelope does not bear a legible 

postmark, the submission is considered filed when received. Importantly, an untimely answer 

does not automatically result in default. TTR 281(1) (R 792.10281) provides that an untimely 

answer “may result” in the respondent being held in default. Moreover, TTR 281(1) cites TTR 

237 (R 792.10237) concerning defaults. Per TTR 237(1), a party held in default must cure the 

default as directed by the Tribunal’s order, and only a failure to cure may result in a default 

hearing. 

 

Here, the Tribunal served the Notice of Docket Number on Respondent on August 1, 

2026. The twenty-eighth day was Saturday, August 29, 2026, making Respondent’s answer due 

on Monday, August 31, 2026. Respondent stamped and mailed its answer by first-class mail on 

August 27, 2026, four days before the deadline. Tribunal staff subsequently confirmed over the 

phone with Respondent that the answer was received on September 2, 2026. 

 

Accordingly, the answer was timely if the envelope bears a qualifying postmark dated no 

later than August 31, 2026. However, even if the September 2, 2026 receipt date controls, 

Respondent is afforded an opportunity to cure the default. Respondent has already cured as the 

Tribunal has received its answer. The parties are now awaiting the Tribunal’s administrative 

filing process, including placement on the docket and notice to Petitioner. Therefore, Respondent 

respectfully requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s Motion for Default because it is 

unwarranted.

3 

KIRK , HUTH , LANGE & BADALAMENTI , P . L . C . 

II. 

RESPONDENT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SERVE ITS ANSWER DIRECTLY 

ON PETITIONER 

 

Additionally, Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to serve its answer on Petitioner. 

However, the Tribunal’s proof of service guidance expressly provides that parties in the Small 

Claims Division are not required to serve the petition, answer, or supporting documentation filed 

with those pleadings on the opposing party. Instead, TTR 281(5) (R 792.10281) states that the 

Tribunal shall issue notice to the parties upon the filing of the answer; and the Tribunal’s 

guidance states that only subsequent filings require proof of service. 

 

Here, Respondent satisfied this requirement by stamping and mailing its answer via first 

class mail to the Tribunal on August 27, 2026. Again, the parties are now awaiting the Tribunal’s 

administrative filing process, including placement on the docket and notice to Petitioner. 

Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests that the Tribunal deny Petitioner’s Motion for 

Default as it is unwarranted. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that the Michigan Tax Tribunal deny 

Petitioner’s Motion for Default. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KIRK, HUTH, LANGE & BADALAMENTI, PLC 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 /s/Rosemary V. Davis 

 

 

 

ROBERT S. HUTH, JR. (P42531) 

ROSEMARY DAVIS (P47336) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19500 Hall Road, Suite 100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clinton Township, MI 48038 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(586) 412-4900 

 

Dated: September 18, 2026

← View full record