24-003829 dismiss_amend.pdf
Township Of Marion, Petitioner V City Of Howell, Respondent · 24-003829-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 Marion Township, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003829 City of Howell, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER CORRECTING DOCKET On January 28, 2025, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the above-captioned case. In the motion, Respondent states that the case should be dismissed because Petitioner is not a party-in-interest relative to the property at issue; the property is owned by Marion Township, and Petitioner has no legal interest or standing to file an appeal. On February 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a response to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and a motion requesting that the Tribunal permit it to amend the filed Petition. Petitioner states in these filings that it included contact information for Robert Hanvey in the Petition because he was the supervisor for Marion Township at the time the Petition was filed. Marion Township owns the property at issue, and the docket should be corrected to reflect it as Petitioner in this matter. Additionally, the Township recently elected a new supervisor, and Petitioner’s contact information should be updated to reflect Bill Fenton, as Township Supervisor, in place of Robert Hanvey. Respondent has not filed a response to Petitioner’s Motion to Amend. The Tribunal has considered the motions and the case file and finds that Petitioner erred in listing Robert W. Hanvey as Petitioner in Section 1 of the Petition form. This section specifically seeks contact information for the Petitioner, i.e., “the person, business, or entity filing the appeal.” Mr. Hanvey would be considered a representative for Marion Township, and he should have been listed in Section 2 of the Petition form, if so desired, in addition to the already named representative.1 Nevertheless, the noted 1 The Petition lists John Gormley of Gormley Law Offices, PLC, as Petitioner’s authorized representative. Mr. Hanvey’s inclusion is optional, because as stated in the form instructions: “If Petitioner elects to have an attorney or authorized representative, only the attorney or authorized representative will receive notices and documents from the Tribunal.” Id.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003829 Page 2 of 2 error is properly corrected under the misnomer doctrine.2 Further, while “a petition or answer may only be amended by leave of the tribunal,”3 “leave to amend must . . . be freely given when justice so requires.”4 The Michigan Supreme Court has also held that “a motion to amend should be granted unless one of the following particularized reasons exists: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory tactics, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, or (5) futility.”5 No such reasons exist in this case, and the Tribunal is satisfied that granting Petitioner’s motion will facilitate the efficient administration of justice. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Docket shall be CORRECTED to reflect Marion Township as Petitioner in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appearance must be filed if Petitioner wishes to add the Township Supervisor as an authorized representative in this matter.6 By _____________________________ Entered: March 17, 2025 ejg/jc 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 2 See Parke, Davis & Co v Grand Trunk Ry Sys, 207 Mich 388; 174 NW 145 (1919), and Vanco 1 LLC v Grand Rapids, unpublished per curiam opinion of the court of appeal, issued November 18, 2014 (Docket No. 317305). 3 TTR 221(1). 4 Id. 5 Ford Motor Co v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 447 (2006) (citation omitted). 6 See TTR 223(1), which states that “an attorney or authorized representative may appear on behalf of a party in a contested case by signing the petition or other document initiating the participation of that party in the contested case or by filing an appearance.” Id.