25-003815_recon.pdf

Marion J Bloye Living Trust, Petitioner V Township Of Elk, Respondent · 25-003815-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 

Marion J Bloye Living Trust, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003815 

 

Elk Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On December 18, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on December 1, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they “did not notice the fine print at the back, bottom of the denial 

form that noted the appeal process deadline date for the Michigan Tax Tribunal.” 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner failed 

to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the 

Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the 

error was corrected.1 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because it was not timely filed. Although Petitioner contends that 

the late filing was inadvertent, the Michigan Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the 

Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to assume jurisdiction in cases presenting 

potential due-process violations when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal 

under MCL 205.735a have not been met, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only 

be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body with powers of equity.2 The same 

reasoning applies to the filing and protest requirements of MCL 205.735a. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

 

1 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

2 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also 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), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized 

by statute and do not include powers of equity.

MTT Docket No. 25-003815 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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: December 30, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

sw/jcr 

 

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