24-003653 Recon Grant and Default P.pdf
Joseph A Winfield, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003653-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 Joseph A Winfield, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003653 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER REINSTATING CASE ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT On March 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on March 5, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner states that they did not intentionally refuse to comply with the Tribunal’s orders and that they were unaware of the motion filing fee requirement. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has demonstrated 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 Specifically, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner has demonstrated a history of failing to comply with Tribunal orders and rules by not paying the required filing fees, failing to respond to the original Order of Default, only partially complying with the Order Extending Default, and failing to respond to the Notion of No Action. Given Petitioner’s statement that these failures were not intentional, the Tribunal finds no deliberate delay by Petitioner.2 Further, there is no indication that Respondent has suffered any prejudice.3 Petitioner still has not paid the fees required for the filing of the petition and the Motion to Set Aside Default, however, or filed proof that the Motion to Set Aside Default was served on Respondent. Petitioner is subject to default as a result, and failure to fully comply with this order will be considered both willful and deliberate so as to warrant dismissal of the case.4 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. 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 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 3 Id. At 149. 4 See TTR 237.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003653 Page 2 of 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REINSTATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall (1) pay the remaining $100.00 owed for the petition filing fee, (2) pay the $25.00 motion fee for the Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3) file proof the Motion to Set Aside Default was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.5 Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the case, as provided by TTR 237.6 Entered: April 30, 2025 By _______________________________ cs 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 5 “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 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). 6 See also MCL 205.732.