24-004087 Dismiss.pdf

Monroe Capital Holding LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-004087-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 

Monroe Capital Holding LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004087 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER REMOVING CASE FROM JANUARY 16 – 30, 2026 PREHEARING GENERAL 

CALL 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal. The pleadings and accompanying documentation indicate that 

Petitioner is appealing the uncapping for Parcel Nos. 21043743.009, 21043743.014, 

and 21043743.013 for the 2023 and 2024 tax years. The Tribunal has no authority over 

those parcels under MCL 211.27b and MCL 211.735a, however, because Petitioner 

failed to appeal the assessment to the Tribunal by the statutory deadlines of May 31, 

2023, and May 31, 2024.1 The petition in this case was filed on November 6, 2024. 

Therefore, the petition was filed beyond the statutory timeframe for an uncapping 

appeal. 

 

Petitioner’s failure to file the appeal by the statutory deadline is a failure to invoke the 

Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.2 In Sixarp, the Michigan Supreme 

Court reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s 

jurisdiction is statutory by nature. The Court stated: 

 

MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that 

governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” 

We therefore overrule Parkview3 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the 

protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere 

“procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and 

 

1 The basis for the uncapping is not entirely clear from the evidence on record. MCL 211.27b(6) states in 

pertinent part: “. . . A buyer, grantee, or other transferee may appeal any increase in taxable value or the 

levy of any additional taxes, interest, and penalties . . . to the Michigan tax tribunal within 35 days of 

receiving the notice of the increase in the property's taxable value.” Further, MCL 205.735a(6) states in 

pertinent part: “The jurisdiction of the tribunal in an assessment dispute as to property classified . . . as 

commercial real property . . . is invoked by a party in interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition on or 

before May 31 of the tax year involved.” The deadline was extended to June 2, 2025 because May 31 fell 

on a Saturday. See MCL 205.735a(8). 

2 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8. 

3 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia¸ 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990).

MTT Docket No. 24-004087 

Page 2 of 3 

 

not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if 

necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived 

the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.4 

 

The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon by the Sixarp court is applicable 

to MCL 211.27b(6) and MCL 205.735a(6) in this case. The Legislature created a 

statutory jurisdiction requirement that a commercial assessment appeal be filed with the 

Tribunal by May 31 of the tax years under appeal, or alternatively, an assessor’s notice 

of uncapping shall be appealed to the Tribunal within 35 days of the notice. These 

statutory subsections, like MCL 205.735a(3), control the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an 

appeal. The Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.5 

“[S]imply because the plaintiffs' underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and 

may even be meritorious, does not excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim 

within the applicable statutory period of limitation.”6 

 

The Tribunal notes that the petition and motion for reconsideration in this case contend 

that an uncapping notice was not sent to Petitioner. The petition indicates that 

Respondent did not comply with its statutory notice requirement. This contention of 

improper notice, if actionable, would require a determination by an applicable authority 

that the purported error resulted in a due-process violation. As explained above, the 

Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. 

Jurisdiction as a result of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory 

obligation, if there was any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as 

a matter of equity.7 Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. 

 

Without jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the case shall be removed from the 

Prehearing General Call. 

 

Finally, the Tribunal notes that Respondent’s prehearing statement indicates that the 

property was erroneously uncapped and that the TV was corrected at subsequent 

Boards of Review, apparently the 2024 December and 2025 March Boards of Review. 

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over any Board of Review (BOR) decision not 

appealed to it; however, nor does any BOR have authority over a tax year when that 

year is already under appeal to the Tribunal.8 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMOVED from the January 16 – 30, 2026 

 

4 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted). 

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). 

6 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 

7 See Sixarp at 4, 8. The court held respectively that “the Court of Appeals remedied the violation by 

vesting the MTT with jurisdiction to consider the exemption claim as a matter of equity” and that Petitioner 

was required to demonstrate that Respondent deprived it of its right to constitutional due process to 

invoke this court’s jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.) 

8 The Tribunal’s authority over a tax year or tax issue under appeal is exclusive. See MCL 205.731.

MTT Docket No. 24-004087 

Page 3 of 3 

 

Prehearing General Call. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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 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. 

 

 

Entered: October 7, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

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

← View full record