25-002326 Extension and Partial Dismissal.pdf
David J Bullinger, Petitioner V City Of Lapeer, Respondent · 25-002326-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 David J Bullinger, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-002326 City of Lapeer, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT On June 24, 2025, Petitioner filed documents regarding their claim for a Qualified Agricultural Exemption and subsequent denial by Respondent’s assessor in response to the Tribunal’s June 10, 2025 Order of Default. The Tribunal has considered the response and the case file and finds that Petitioner is appealing both the denial of a Qualified Agricultural Exemption and the Board of Review’s determination as to the assessed and taxable values of the subject property. However, the Tribunal finds that it does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim regarding the denial of the Qualified Agricultural Exemption. MCL 211.7ee states that “qualified agricultural property is exempt from the tax levied by a local school district for school operating purposes . . . .”1 An owner of property classified as anything other than agricultural, however, is required to file an affidavit with the local taxing unit no later than May 1 to claim the exemption, and the assessor is responsible for determining whether the property is entitled to the exemption upon such filing.2 Alternatively, “an owner of property that is qualified agricultural property on May 1 for which an exemption was not on the tax roll may file an appeal with the July or December board of review in the year the exemption was claimed or the immediately succeeding year.”3 There is no indication that Petitioner timely filed the requisite affidavit, and there was no appeal to the July or December Board of Review. Instead, Petitioner directly appealed to the March Board of Review, without first timely filing an affidavit with the local taxing unit. The March Board of Review has no authority to determine eligibility or grant an exemption absent a denial by the assessor of an existing exemption on the assessment notice.4 Petitioner subsequently applied for the Qualified Agricultural Exemption by 1 MCL 211.7ee(1). 2 See MCL 211.7ee(2) and (4). 3 MCL 211.7ee(6). 4 See MCL 211.7ee(7), which states: “If the assessor of the local tax collecting unit believes that the property for which an exemption has been granted is not qualified agricultural property, the assessor may deny or modify an existing exemption by notifying the owner in writing at the time required for providing a notice under section 24c. A taxpayer may appeal the assessor's determination to the board of review
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002326 Page 2 of 3 filing an affidavit with Respondent on May 5, 2025. On June 18, 2025, Respondent denied the exemption as untimely because the claim form was filed after May 1st and because the subject property was not being actively used for an agricultural purpose as of May 1st. The June 18, 2025 letter notified Petitioner of their requirement to appeal to either the July or December Board of Review prior to appealing to the Tribunal.5 As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory filing requirement, it has no authority to consider Petitioner’s claims or grant the relief requested regarding the Qualified Agricultural Exemption.6 However, the Tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim regarding the valuation of the subject property as they timely filed their appeal from the notice of the 2025 March Board of Review’s decision.7 Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner was held in default because they filed the wrong petition for the issue being appealed and had not paid the full required fee for the filing of the appropriate petition.8 Although Petitioner timely responded to the Order of Default, their attempt to cure is incomplete because Petitioner failed to file a petition for a valuation appeal and pay the remaining amount owed of the required filing fee. Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a history of deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of the case for failure to timely comply with this order.9 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue only as to Petitioner’s valuation claim for the 2025 tax year. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) file a Petition for Valuation Appeal, (2) pay the remaining $100.00 owed for the required petition filing fee, (3) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, (4) pay the $25.00 fee required for the filing of the motion, and (5) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of entry of this order.10 meeting under section 30. A decision of the board of review may be appealed to the residential and small claims division of the Michigan tax tribunal.” Id. 5 Note that Petitioner may still appeal to the July or December Boards of Review during this calendar year. 6 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. See 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). 7 See MCL 205.735a(6). 8 The order further stated, “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 9 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 10 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 25-002326 Page 3 of 3 The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, must be filed on the assigned docket number as an “Amended Petition.” Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by TTR 237.11 Entered: July 9, 2025 By _____________________________ cs/jc 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 postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5). 11 See also MCL 205.732.