25-002552 Grant MSD Deny Costs.pdf

Marilyn Myers, Petitioner V Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, Respondent · 25-002552-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 

Marilyn Myers, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(4) 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On July 25, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4), arguing that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter 

as the Tribunal’s authority under the property tax laws of Michigan does not extend to 

disputes arising from the Drain Code.1 Respondent further requested that the Tribunal 

award it costs and attorney fees as its extensive efforts to direct information to the 

Petitioner regarding the proper appeal process were disregarded and additional 

litigation costs were incurred as a result. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion or request for costs. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. 

Therefore, the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a 

decision on such motions.2 In this case, Respondent moves for summary disposition 

under MCR 2.116(C)(4). 

 

Dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate when the “court lacks jurisdiction of the 

subject matter.” When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), the 

Tribunal must consider any and all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and 

documentary evidence submitted by the parties.3 In addition, the evidence offered in 

 

1 Respondent cites Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Charter Twp, 299 Mich App 138 (2012), and Wells 

Fargo Rail Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 344 Mich App 351 (2022) to support this contention. 

2 See TTR 201. 

3 Id.

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 2 of 4 

 

support of or in opposition to a party’s motion will “only be considered to the extent that 

the content or substance would be admissible as evidence to establish or deny the 

grounds stated in the motion.”4 A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where 

the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.5 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the file in this case and finds that 

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) must be granted 

as the Tribunal has no authority over the appeal. Petitioner filed this appeal on May 22, 

2025, disputing the Tonkin Drain Assessment. Pursuant to MCL 205.731(a), “[t]he 

tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction” over proceedings “for direct review of a 

final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to 

assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under 

the property tax laws of this state.”6 The record establishes that the special assessment 

at issue in this case was not levied “under the property tax laws of this state,” but under 

the Drain Code of 1956. MCL 205.703(f) specifically states that “ ‘property tax laws’ 

does not include the drain code of 1956.”7 The Drain Code itself grants sole authority 

over drain assessments to probate courts. Specifically, “[t]he owner of any land in the 

drainage district . . . which may feel aggrieved by the apportionment of benefits so made 

by the commissioner, may, within 10 days after the day of review of such 

apportionments, appeal therefrom and for such purpose make an application to the 

probate court of the proper county for the appointment of a board of review.”8 The 

Tribunal and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as 

much,9 and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed 

further except to dismiss the action.”10 

 

The Tribunal further finds that it “may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a 

contested case . . . .”11 The Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Procedures Act 

provide the Tribunal with some criteria in determining whether an award of costs is 

appropriate, but the Court of Appeals has held that costs are entirely within the 

Tribunal’s discretion, and it is not limited to circumstances where the requesting party 

 

4 MCR 2.116(G)(6). 

5 See Citizens for Common Sense in Gov’t v Attorney Gen, 243 Mich App 43; 620 NW2d 546 (2000). 

6 Id. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction over “a proceeding for a refund or redetermination of a tax levied 

under the property tax laws of this state,” and “any other proceeding provided by law.” MCL 205.731(b) 

and (e). 

7 Id. 

8 MCL 280.155. See also MCL 280.197(7): “The owner of any land in the drainage district, the state 

transportation department, or any city, village, township, or county having control of any highway in the 

drainage district, that is aggrieved by a determination to revise, or not to revise, drainage district 

boundaries as provided for in this section may, within 10 days after the order to revise the drainage 

district boundaries is entered, institute an action in the circuit court for the county in which the real 

property is located.” Id. 

9 See Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Twp, 299 Mich App 138 (2012). 

10 Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243 (1985). 

11 TTR 217.

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 3 of 4 

 

shows good cause or the action or defense was frivolous.12 The Tribunal is 

nevertheless generally hesitant to award costs, and usually reserves such action for 

cases in which frivolity or other good cause exists. 

 

“A claim is frivolous when (1) the party's primary purpose was to harass, embarrass, or 

injure the prevailing party, or (2) the party had no reasonable basis upon which to 

believe the underlying facts were true, or (3) the party's position was devoid of arguable 

legal merit.”13 “A court must determine whether a claim or defense is frivolous on the 

basis of the circumstances at the time it was asserted.”14 “[A] claim is devoid of 

arguable legal merit if it is not sufficiently grounded in law or fact, such as when it 

violates basic, longstanding, and unmistakably evident precedent.”15 

 

Here, Respondent asserts that it provided numerous communications and notices about 

the appeal process, consistent with the Drain Code. Further, following Petitioner’s 

initiation of this petition, Respondent repeatedly contacted Petitioner regarding the issue 

of jurisdiction and offered to file a Joint Motion to Withdraw Appeal to no avail. 

 

Given the specific facts and circumstances presented, as discussed above, the Tribunal 

is not persuaded that Petitioner’s primary purpose was to harass, embarrass, or injure, 

or that they had no reasonable basis upon which to believe the underlying facts of the 

claim were true. The Tribunal also finds that Petitioner’s claim was not interposed for 

any improper purpose and it was sufficiently grounded in fact and warranted by existing 

law. As such, and in the absence of a showing of other good cause to justify the 

granting of Respondent’s request, the Tribunal is not satisfied that costs are warranted 

in the instant appeal. Therefore, 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4) is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Request for Costs is DENIED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 See Aberdeen of Brighton, LLC v Brighton, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued October 16, 2012 (Docket No. 301826), which noted that “[t]he term ‘may' is permissive and is 

indicative of discretion.” Id. citing In re Forfeiture of Bail Bond, 276 Mich App 482, 492 (2007). 

13 Cvengros v Farm Bureau Ins, 216 Mich App 261, 266-267 (1996), citing MCL 600.2591(3)(a). 

14 Meisner Law Group, PC v Weston Downs Condo Ass'n, 321 Mich App 702, 732 (2017). 

15 Adamo Demolition Co v Dep't of Treasury, 303 Mich App 356, 369 (2013) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted).

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 4 of 4 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: August 27, 2025 

cs/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

← View full record