24-004091 recon.pdf

Linda Lewis, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-004091-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 

Linda Lewis, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On December 10, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on November 26, 2024.1 In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they received the Board of Review (BOR) letter from the City of 

Detroit in the mail not knowing what it was. Since Petitioner did not attend the BOR, 

they were not aware of the July appeal deadline. 

 

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

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.2 The Tribunal correctly determined that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because they failed to file a petition with the Tribunal on or before 

July 31, 2024, as required by MCL 205.735a.3 Though Petitioner states that they did 

not know what the BOR decision was, they explicitly acknowledge receiving it. The 

BOR decision indicates that the property’s 2024 taxable value was increased from 

$75,898 to $300,600; it also states that “a Michigan Tax Tribunal appeal must be made 

by July 31st of the current year for Residential Real Property Classification.” Moreover, 

“Everyone is presumed to know the law.”4 As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has 

no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing 

deadline, it has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief requested.5 Therefore, 

 

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

 

1 Petitioner filed additional copies/variations of the motion in response to the December 11, 2024 Notice 

of No Action on December 18, 2024 and January 2, 2025. 

2 See MCR 2.119. 

3 The Tribunal also has no authority under MCL 211.53a because the facts alleged do not establish that 

the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, typographical, or 

mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on 

by both parties”).3 And though MCL 211.53b provides July and December boards of review with the 

authority to correct qualified errors, Petitioner did not appear before Respondent’s July or December 

Board of Review or appeal an action taken by any such board. 

4 Grand Rapids Indep Pub Co v City of Grand Rapids, 335 Mich 620, 630; 56 NW2d 403, 407 (1953). 

5 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See 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).

MTT Docket No. 24-004091 

Page 2 of 2 

 

 

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 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: January 13, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

ejg 

 

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