24-004087 Recon Reinstate.pdf
Monroe Capital Holding LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-004087-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 Monroe Capital Holding LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-004087 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER REINSTATING CASE On November 21, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on November 14, 2024. In the motion, Petitioner states they did not receive the notice of uncapping. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has demonstrated a palpable error relative to the order that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.1 Specifically, Petitioner contends the assessment notices were not received. The Tribunal need not determine whether a notice was actually received but must look to whether the notice was reasonably calculated to inform Petitioner of the denial.2 Whether a notice was reasonably calculated to inform a taxpayer of an action requires the Tribunal to make a finding of fact and therefore requires this case to proceed to hearing on that issue as well as the merits of Petitioner’s claims, if applicable. Petitioner has demonstrated good cause to grant the motion. Further, this appeal was filed in the Entire Tribunal but mistakenly docketed the appeal as being filed in the Small Claims division. The Tribunal shall issue an updated notice of docket upon reinstating this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REINSTATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file proof of service of the petition upon all parties in interest, as required by TTR 221(6), within 14 days of this order. 1 See TTR 261, TTR 215, and MCR 2.119. 2 See Oak Park Crown Pointe v City of Oak Park, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued December 12, 2019 (Docket No 345819).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-004087 Page 2 of 2 Failure to comply with this order shall result in Petitioner being placed in default.3 Entered: December 16, 2024 By _____________________________ bw/jcr 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 TTR 231.