25-003079.pdf

Garrett-Austin Properties, LLC, Petitioner V City Of Hazel Park, Respondent · 25-003079-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.

RECEIVED 

0CT 1 02025 

MICHIGAN TAX TIREBUMNAL). 

7 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Chil 

) 

I 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ¢ 15500] 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

Garrett-Austin Properties, LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MTT Docket No. 25-003079 

Hon. Patricia L. Halm 

v 

City of Hazel Park, 

Respondent. 

/ 

Randall T. LeVasseur P41712 

City of Hazel Park, Respondent 

LEVASSEUR DYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attn: Mark Lorkowski 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Assessing Department / Assessor 

3233 Coolidge Highway 

111 E. Nine Mile Rd 

Berkley, MI 48072 

Hazel Park, MI 48030 

(248) 850-1388 

(248) 546-4067 

Randy@LDALAW.com 

mlorkowski@hazelpark.org 

/ 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

NOW COMES Petitioner, by and through its attorneys, LeVasseur Dyer and Associates, 

P.C., and for its Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal states as follows: 

1: 

This matter pertains to the uncapping of taxable value for Petitioner’s property commonly 

known as 581 E. Milton, Hazel Park, MI 48030, parcel ID # 28-25-36-352-027. 

2. 

Petitioner has owned the property since 2009 and never transferred the property. 

3 

Upon information and belief, Respondent believed a deed Petitioner acquired to address 

an old land contract from the 1990s was a transfer. 

Such deed, however, was exempt 

pursuant to MCL 211.27a(6)(b), which provides taxable value shall not be adjusted when

5. 

The Tribunal on October 7, 2025 entered an Order of Dismissal, concluding that the 

Tribunal did not have jurisdiction because Petitioner had not first appealed the uncapping 

of taxable value to Respondent’s March Board of Review. 

6. 

The Tribunal, when entering the Order of Dismissal, did not take into consideration MCL 

211.27b(6), which provides for appeals to the Tribunal “within 35 days of (a Petitioner) 

receiving the notice of the increase in the property's taxable value.” 

Ts 

MCL 211.27b(6) authorizes such appeals without requiring that a Petitioner first appeal 

to a local Board of Review, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction so long as the Petition 

is 

filed “within 35 days of receiving the notice”. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Tribunal reconsider and set 

aside its Order of Dismissal dated October 7, 2025, and reinstate this case. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Swaod?, 7 Lo Yasser 

Dated: October 7, 2025 

Randall T. LeVasseur P41712 

LEVASSEUR DYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S MOTION 

It is well-settled that a motion for reconsideration under MCL 2.119(F) may be filed for 

any reason and the trial court or tribunal has wide discretion 

in granting such motion. MCR 

2.119(F) 

“allows 

the 

court 

considerable 

discretion 

in 

granting 

reconsideration 

to 

correct 

mistakes, to preserve judicial economy, and to minimize costs to the parties.” Kokx v. Bylenga,

Petitioner timely filed its Petition within 35 days of receiving notice of the taxable value 

uncapping, as permitted under MCL 211.27b(6). 

The statute does not require a prior protest to 

the local Board of Review; therefore, the Tribunal has proper jurisdiction to hear this matter. 

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal reconsider 

its Order of 

Dismissal and reinstate this case. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Isl fnatlV 7 Lo Yassear 

Dated: October 7, 2025 

Randall T. LeVasseur P41712 

LEVASSEUR DYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The 

undersigned 

duly 

states 

that 

on 

the 

date 

below 

he 

served 

Petitioner’s 

Motion 

for 

Reconsideration upon Respondent by first class mail and email, addressed to Respondent at the 

mailing address and email address appearing in the case caption above. 

Isl Sanat? J, Lo Vasvear 

Dated: October 7, 2025 

Randall T. LeVasseur P41712 

Attorney for Petitioner

LEVASSEUR DYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 

3233 Coolidge Hwy 

Berkley, MI 48072 

(248) 236-1765 

Fax (248) 586-1300 

Via FedEx Delivery 

October 8, 2025 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

Small Claims Division 

611 W. Ottawa St 

Lansing, MI 48933 

Re: 

 Garrett-Austin Properties, LLC v City of Hazel Park 

MTT # 25-003079 

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed please find two copies of Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, 

a self- 

addressed/stamped return envelope, and our check for $25. 

Please accept for filing our Motion for Reconsideration and return a time-stamped copy to us 

in the enclosed envelope. The $25 check covers the filing fee in this Small Claims matter. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please reach out to us if you have any questions 

or concerns. 

Yours truly, 

Randall T. LeVasseur 

Enc 

Randy@LDALAW.com

Envelo

Recycle

← View full record