25-002889 Recon Deny Corrected Dismissal.pdf

Managify Inc, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-002889-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 

Managify Inc, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISON 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002889 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

CORRECTED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On September 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal 

reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on September 15, 2025. In the 

motion, Petitioner states that this case was improperly dismissed for failure to protest 

the assessment to the March Board of Review (BOR), as required by MCL 205.735a, 

since the property is classified as commercial real property. Therefore, Petitioner was 

not required to protest before the BOR and as such, protested directly to the Tribunal. 

 

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

indicated on the petition that they did not protest the assessment to the Board of Review 

and that the subject property is classified as residential. As a result, the Tribunal 

entered the Order of Dismissal for failure to meet the protest requirements of MCL 

205.735a. However, the documentation filed with the Motion for Reconsideration 

demonstrates that the property is classified as commercial. While Petitioner correctly 

asserts that assessments for properties classified as commercial may be protested 

directly to the Tribunal, these protests must also be filed by May 31 of the tax year 

involved. Since May 31, 2025, fell on a Saturday, the deadline for filing an appeal in 

2025 was June 2, 2025.1 The petition in this case was filed on July 28, 2025. Thus, 

while the Tribunal erred in the initial reasoning for dismissal, Petitioner’s appeal is still 

untimely, and dismissal of this action remains the appropriate disposition. Given the 

above, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 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.2 

 

Moreover, the Tribunal finds that the accompanying documentation with the Motion for 

Reconsideration also indicates that Petitioner is not the party-in-interest for this matter. 

Rather, the documentation provides that Lakewood LLC is the party-in-interest and 

 

1 See TTR 205. 

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. 25-002889 

Page 2 of 2 

 

proper party to this appeal.3 However, the Tribunal finds that further investigation into 

this issue is not necessary as the case remains dismissed. Therefore, 

 

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

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the September 16, 2025 Order of Dismissal is 

CORRECTED. 

 

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 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 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 6, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

cs/am 

 

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 

 

 

 

3 Pursuant to MCL 205.735a, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction can only be invoked by a party in interest. The 

Michigan Court of Appeals has held that “a ‘party in interest’ includes persons or entities with a property 

interest in the property being assessed.” Spartan Stores, Inc v City of Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 

567 (2014).

← View full record