25-003150 Recon.pdf
Bernard T Rocca, Rebecca Rocca, Petitioners Vs. Township Of Leelanau, Respondent · 25-003150-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 Bernard T Rocca and Rebecca Rocca, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioners, v MTT Docket No. 25-003150 Leelanau Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Joshua M. Wease ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 18, 2025, Petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on August 13, 2025. In the motion, Petitioners state that attached evidence demonstrates that the petition was postmarked by the filing deadline of July 31, 2025. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate 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 Pursuant to MCL 205.735a(7)(a), “a petition is considered filed on or before the expiration of the time period provided in this section or by law if . . . . [it] is postmarked by the United States postal service on or before the expiration of that time period.”2 The envelope containing the petition in this case, however, bears a metered postmark, and it therefore was not “postmarked” by the United States postal service as provided by MCL 205.735a(7)(a). This determination was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp.3: The operative language of the statute is ‘postmarked by the United States postal service.’ Thus, the statute unambiguously treats ‘postmarked’ as a verb, or in other words, an action undertaken by the USPS. Petitioners rely on treating the word as a noun, which would impermissibly rewrite the statute to read something in effect, ‘bearing a postmark from the United States postal service.’ Although perhaps a subtle distinction, we are not permitted to deviate from what the Legislature actually wrote. ‘Postmark,’ when used as a verb, means ‘to put a postmark on.’ Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed). Consequently, the statute unambiguously 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 Id. See also TTR 225(5), which states, in relevant part, that “a submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the submission.” Id. 3 Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 26, 2017 (Docket No. 334318).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003150 Page 2 of 2 requires the postmark to have been applied ‘by the United States postal service.’ We conclude that it was not, and petitioners do not appear to seriously contend that it was so applied. A postage meter is ‘a device or system of components a customer uses to print evidence that postage required for mailing has been paid.’ . . . . Postage meters imprint postage under license of the USPS . . . and are regulated by the USPS to ensure they are properly used . . . . Thus, the petition in this case could not have literally been ‘postmarked’ by the USPS because it was postmarked by petitioners. At best, the petition was postmarked under license of the USPS. The statute unambiguously mandates that only petitions that are ‘postmarked by the United States postal service’ fall within the provisions of MCL 205.735a(7)(a).4 TTR 225(5) states that “a submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal.”5 The petition in this case was date-stamped by the Tribunal on August 4, 2025, and also bears a money-stamped date of August 4, 2025, which is considered the date received by the Tribunal for purposes of TTR 225(5). As such, and because the petition wasn’t filed until August 4, 2025, the appeal is untimely and was properly dismissed. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ 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 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: September 4, 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 4 Arbor Crossings Apt LLC v Muskegon Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 26, 2017 (Docket No. 334318). 5 Id.