24-003379 recon.pdf

Sharon M Wietecha, Petitioner V Township Of Hamburg, Respondent · 24-003379-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 

Sharon M Wietecha, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003379 

 

Hamburg Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On January 17, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 8, 2026. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that their computer was hacked in late September and they lost a lot of 

information that was not recently saved. Petitioner is still trying to retrieve as much as 

they can remember; this was very upsetting to them and their main focus. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner 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 Dismissal was proper due to Petitioner’s failure to appear at the 

December 11, 2025 hearing and the default order that was subsequently entered on 

December 12, 2025. The hearing notice and default order were properly sent to 

Petitioner at their email address of record and Petitioner does not contend that it did not 

receive the hearing notice. It appears that Petitioner received the dismissal order given 

the timely filing of the instant motion requesting reconsideration of that order, which was 

sent to the same email address. Unfortunately, personal issues and disruptions do not 

constitute good cause for failing to properly prosecute an appeal or otherwise establish 

palpable error in the entry of the default and dismissal orders. Thus, there are no 

grounds for granting reconsideration or reinstating the case. 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. 

 

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 

 

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).

MTT Docket No. 24-003379 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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: January 23, 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

← View full record