25-002340 Reconsideration Deny JCG.pdf
Giancarlo Vanin, Petitioner V Township Of Plainfield, Respondent · 25-002340-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 Giancarlo Vanin, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-002340 Plainfield Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On July 1, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on June 10, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner states that he closed on his condo on January 15, 2025, and left for vacation. Further, Petitioner admits that the assessment notice was mailed in February 2025, and he received it, but he was unable to appeal to the March Board of Review because he was on vacation from January 15, 2025, to March 15, 2025. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner is merely restating the arguments and evidence previously presented. The issues raised in the motion were considered by the Tribunal in rendering the Order of Dismissal. In the Order of Dismissal, the Tribunal found that Petitioner failed to protest the notice of assessment to Respondent’s March Board of Review, as required by MCL 205.735a.1 Further, the Tribunal has no equitable powers to waive or disregard a statutory filing requirement and thus has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief requested.2 Given the above, 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.3 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. 1 MCL 205.735a(3) states, in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided in this section or by law, for an assessment dispute as to the valuation or exemption of property, the assessment must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal acquires jurisdiction of the dispute under subsection (6).” Id. 2 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) and Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 3 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).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002340 Page 2 of 2 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: July 10, 2025 By _______________________________ cs 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