26-000125 SAD Dismiss.pdf
Suzanne Berry, Petitioner V City Of Dearborn, Respondent · 26-000125-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 Suzanne Berry, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000125 City of Dearborn, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER SETTING ASIDE PETITIONER’S DEFAULT ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Petitioner was held in default on January 21, 2026, because they filed an outdated petition form. Having now filed an updated form, Petitioner has complied with the Tribunal’s order, as required by TTR 237. As such, the Tribunal finds good cause to set Petitioner’s default aside. Though the amended petition filed on February 3, 2026, is limited to Petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption for the 2025 tax year, the original petition indicated that Petitioner was appealing both a poverty exemption and true cash and taxable value (valuation) for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. The Tribunal has no authority over Petitioner’s poverty exemption appeal for the 2024 tax year because the original petition was filed on January 9, 2026, from the December 2025 Board of Review (BOR) decision, and that decision only included the 2025 tax year; there was no decision for 2024. The Tribunal’s authority is limited to “a proceeding for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state.”1 If there is no final decision, finding, ruling, determination or order, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or authority, and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”2 The Tribunal also has no authority over Petitioner’s valuation appeal for the 2024 and 2025 tax years because they did not protest the property’s assessment to the March BOR and file an appeal with the Tribunal on or before July 31 of those years, as required by MCL 205.735a. The Tribunal also has no authority under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do not establish that the assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both 1 MCL 205.731(a). 2 Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243; 134 NW2d 146 (1985).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-000125 Page 2 of 2 parties”).3 Moreover, while MCL 211.53b does provide July and December boards of review with the authority to correct qualified errors, the December 2025 BOR decision, as noted above, addressed only the 2025 poverty exemption. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s default is SET ASIDE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s poverty exemption appeal for the 2024 tax year is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s valuation appeal for the 2024 and 2025 tax years is DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 poverty exemption dispute only. Entered: March 5, 2026 By _____________________________ ejg/am 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 3 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).