25-003430 Order Denying Reconsideration.pdf

Maurice A Gholston, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003430-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 

Maurice A Gholston 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003430 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On January 29, 2026, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order for Default Hearing entered in the above-captioned case on January 12, 

2026.1 In the Motion, Respondent states that due to technical difficulties, notifications 

regarding the default were not received. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Respondent is 

merely restating the arguments and evidence previously presented. And despite 

Respondent assertions to the contrary, the issues raised in the Motion were considered 

by the Tribunal in rendering the Order for Default Hearing. Specifically, the Tribunal 

considered Respondent’s lack of response and delay in the proceedings and found that 

it resulted in prejudice to Petitioner in this matter. With no other sanction available, the 

Tribunal found that an order for a default hearing was warranted. Respondent did not 

address the prejudice to Petitioner by the delay in proceedings in the motion. 

 

Given the above, Respondent has failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the 

Order for Default Hearing that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have 

resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.2 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: March 6, 2026 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

cs 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Respondent filed a Motion to Set Aside Default, however, the Tribunal is construing this motion as a 

Motion for Reconsideration based on the requested relief. 

2 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. 25-003430 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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