25-003077 Recon.pdf

David Turner, Petitioner V Township Of Buchanan, Respondent · 25-003077-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 

David Turner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003077 

 

Buchanan Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On December 5, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on December 3, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they learned in July that the 2024 form was not accepted. They 

sought to file it, but it was rejected at that time. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that 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.1 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because Petitioner is not appealing the denial of a Board of Review 

decision as required by MCL 211.7b. Although Petitioner contends that Respondent 

erred in its failure to act on Petitioner’s 2024 exemption submission, the Michigan 

Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to 

assume jurisdiction in cases presenting potential due-process violations when the 

statutory requirements for filing an appeal under MCL 205.735a have not been met, and 

that jurisdiction in such cases may only be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body 

with powers of equity.2 

 

Further, Petitioner did not file a Motion to Set Aside default and proof of service of that 

motion as required by the Tribunal’s November 5, 2025 order. 

 

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 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). 

2 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also 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), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized 

by statute and do not include powers of equity.

MTT Docket No. 25-003077 

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: December 18, 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