25-002994 dismiss.pdf

Rohrscheib Sons Caissons Inc, Petitioner Vs. City Of Flint, Respondent · 25-002994-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 

Rohrscheib Sons Caissons Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002994 

 

City of Flint, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On September 26, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal set aside 

the default entered in this case on August 18, 2025.1 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner was 

held in default because it filed an incomplete, unsigned Small Claims petition. Further, 

the appeal was not properly pending in the Small Claims Division based on the 

commercial classification of the property at issue and the indicated amount in dispute.2 

Petitioner failed to respond to the Order of Default, and on September 15, 2025, the 

Tribunal entered an order extending the time to cure the default. Pursuant to that order, 

Petitioner was required to file an Entire Tribunal petition with proof evidencing service of 

the petition on all parties in interest, pay the remaining filing fee required for the filing of 

the Entire Tribunal petition, and file a Motion to Set Aside Default with the requisite 

motion fee.3 

 

Having now paid the requisite filing fees for both the Entire Tribunal petition and Motion 

to Set Aside Default, Petitioner partially complied with the Tribunal’s orders. Petitioner 

failed, however, to file the required Entire Tribunal petition with proof of service. While 

this ordinarily would warrant one final extension and opportunity to cure the default, 

closer review of the case file reveals that the Tribunal has no authority over Petitioner’s 

appeal. As noted above, the property is classified as commercial, and Petitioner was 

therefore required to file an appeal with the Tribunal no later than May 31, 2025.4 

However, the petition was filed on July 31, 2025. As such, the appeal is untimely. 

 

1 Petitioner’s September 26, 2025 filing was construed to serve as the requisite motion. Though 

Petitioner failed to file proof evidencing service of the filing on Respondent, such proofs are not required 

for motions filed in the Entire Tribunal prior to the filing of an answer to the petition. 

2 See MCL 205.762. 

3 See TTR 227. 

4 MCL 205.735a(6) states that “the jurisdiction of the tribunal in an assessment dispute as to property 

classified . . . [as] commercial personal property . . . is invoked by a party in interest, as petitioner, filing a 

written petition on or before May 31 of the tax year involved.” Id. However, May 31, 2025, fell on a 

Saturday. As such, the filing deadline was June 2, 2025. MCL 205.735a(4)(b) further states: “For an

MTT Docket No. 25-002994 

Page 2 of 3 

 

The Michigan Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Tribunal lacks any equitable 

authority to assume jurisdiction in cases presenting potential due-process violations 

when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal under MCL 205.735a have not 

been met, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only be vested upon the Tribunal by a 

judicial body with powers of equity.5 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

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 motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, 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 

 

assessment dispute as to the valuation or exemption of property classified . . . as commercial personal 

property . . . the assessment may be protested before the board of review or appealed directly to the 

tribunal without protest before the board of review as provided in subsection (6), if a statement of 

assessable property is filed under . . . MCL 211.19, prior to the commencement of the board of review for 

the tax year involved.” Id. The petition indicates that petitioner did not file a protest with the board of 

review, and it is unknown whether it timely filed a personal property statement for the property at issue. 

5 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also 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), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized 

by statute and do not include powers of equity.

MTT Docket No. 25-002994 

Page 3 of 3 

 

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: October 13, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

ejg/sb 

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