26-000030 Recon.pdf
5555 Arnold, LLC, Petitioner V Township Of Acme, Respondent · 26-000030-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
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 5555 Arnold LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000030 Acme Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On February 2, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on January 14, 2026. In the motion, Petitioner states that the Tribunal erred in entering the order because Respondent’s purported notice of the Qualified Agricultural Exemption denial is deficient. Petitioner contends that the notice is defective because it is false and misleading. Petitioner contends this case is distinguishable from Sixarp, LLC v Township of Byron,1 as was relied upon by the order, because the notice in the Sixarp case was “clear and unambiguous,” whereas the subject notice was misleading due to a reference to market adjustment. Such an error either constitutes a “qualified error” for purposes of MCL 211.53b or results in a due-process violation. 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 that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.2 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal because Petitioner did not appeal the assessor determination to the March Board of Review as required by MCL 211.7ee(7). Although Petitioner contends that the notice was defective, 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.3 The same reasoning applies to the filing and protest requirements of MCL 211.7ee. For these reasons, no consideration is given to the motion’s contention that the Tribunal has authority to consider the appeal if there was a due-process violation. 1 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, _ NW3d _ (Mich Supreme Court Docket No. 166190) (2025) (Sixarp). 2 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). 3 See Sixarp. 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.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-000030 Page 2 of 2 The motion also contends that the December Board of Review has authority over the appeal because the defective notice in February or March 2025 constitutes a qualified error for purposes of MCL 211.53b. However, this interpretation of the subject facts ignores the plain language of MCL 211.7ee(7). Further, the purported facts, in the light most favorable to Petitioner, do not constitute any definition of qualified error under MCL 211.53b(6). The Tribunal also notes that the Michigan Court of Appeals recently determined that a notice with incorrect appeal rights constitutes sufficient notice for due-process purposes.4 Only the appellate court may utilize equitable authority to reinstate a correctly dismissed Tribunal appeal. 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 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: February 12, 2026 bw 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 4 See IIP-MI 4 LLC v City of Warren, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued January 22, 2026 (Docket No. 373070).