25-003374 Default.pdf
Emily M Cook, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003374-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 Emily M Cook, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003374 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that Petitioner failed to complete section seven of the petition form. Because Petitioner failed to provide their contention for the subject property’s fair market value or taxable value, the appeal is not properly pending. Further, Respondent’s Board of Review decision indicates that Petitioner’s property does not have a Principal Residence Exemption. Therefore, Petitioner also failed to pay the required fee for the filing of the petition. See Tax Tribunal Rules 279 and 269. Petitioner must complete the petition by providing all information required by each applicable section, return the completed petition, and pay the required filing fee for the filing of the petition within 14 days of entry of this order. The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal. Small Claims petition forms and a filing fee calculator can be found on the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Unfortunately, the filing fee payment may not be made via e-filing. Furthermore, although the petition indicates that Petitioner is also appealing a poverty exemption, the Tribunal finds that it has no authority over this claim. Based on the petition that was submitted, Petitioner is seeking a poverty exemption for the 2025 tax year, but Petitioner failed to provide a copy of the denial of the exemption issued by Respondent. The March Board of Review decision submitted by Petitioner did not indicate that the Board of Review considered or denied a poverty exemption request. Submission of a request for a poverty exemption at a board of review is a pre-requisite for invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over such issues, however, and the Tribunal’s authority is limited to “a proceeding for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state.”1 If there is no final decision, finding, ruling, determination or order, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or authority, and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction 1 MCL 205.731(a).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003374 Page 2 of 2 should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”2 As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline, it has no authority to grant Petitioner the relief requested.3 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) file a fully-completed Small Claims petition form, and (2) pay the required petition filing fee. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of entry of this Order.4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s 2025 poverty exemption claims are DISMISSED. Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). Entered: September 15, 2025 By _____________________________ smm/gc 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 2 Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243; 134 NW2d 146 (1985). 3 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). 4 “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).