25-003285.pdf

Patricia N Huth, Petitioner Vs. Township Of Valley, Respondent · 25-003285-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 

Patricia N Huth, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003285 

 

Valley Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

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 poverty exemption denial for Parcel No. 22-024-012-20 for 

the 2025 tax year. The Tribunal has no authority over that parcel under MCL 211.53c, 

however, because Petitioner failed to appeal the Board of Review (BOR) decision to the 

Tribunal within 30 days of the decision.1 That decision is dated July 22, 2025.2 

However, the petition in this case was filed on August 23, 2025. Therefore, the appeal 

was filed beyond the statutory timeframe. 

 

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

Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.3 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 Parkview4 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 

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.5 

 

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

to MCL 211.53c in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction 

 

1 MCL 211.53c states: “If the July or December board of review denies a claim for exemption under 

section 7u, the person claiming the exemption may appeal that decision to the Michigan tax tribunal within 

30 days of the denial.” See also MCL 211.7u and MCL 211.53b. 

2 Attachment to Petitioner’s petition, filed on August 21, 2024. 

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

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

5 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted).

MTT Docket No. 25-003285 

Page 2 of 3 

 

requirement that the BOR decision be appealed by filing a petition with the Tribunal 

within 30 days of the day of the July BOR notice. This statutory subsection, like MCL 

205.735a(3), controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The Tribunal has no 

equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.6 “If an assessment for a 

particular tax year is not protested to the Board and appealed to the Tribunal via timely 

petition, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider challenges to that tax year.”7 

 

The Tribunal notes that the BOR notice does not state the correct appeal rights for the 

subject denial of the poverty exemption claim. It instead states that the correct appeal 

deadline is 35 days from the date of the decision. This omission or misstatement of the 

required filing deadline, if actionable, would require a determination that the omission or 

misstatement 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.8 Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Therefore, 

 

IT IS 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 

 

6 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). 

7 See Forbes v City of Ann Arbor, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, 

issued May 11, 2023 (Docket No 361648). 

8 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.)

MTT Docket No. 25-003285 

Page 3 of 3 

 

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: September 3, 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