24-003977 recon.pdf
Robert K Haag, Petitioner V Township Of Fair Haven, Respondent · 24-003977-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 Robert K Haag, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003977 Fair Haven Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Joshua M. Wease ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER REINSTATING CASE ORDER REQUIRING INFORMATION On November 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on October 20, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner states that they appealed within 30 days of the confirmation of the special assessment roll as specified in MCL 41.726. 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 Petitioner filed this appeal on September 20, 2024, disputing a special assessment levied under MCL 41.3c. The Tribunal noted in the Order of Dismissal that Petitioner protested the assessment at the hearing held for the purpose of confirming the special assessment roll, as required by MCL 205.735a, but found that the roll was not confirmed at that meeting because it was contingent on elector approval. The Tribunal finds, however, that it erred in this determination, and the special assessment was confirmed at the August 20, 2024. Resolution No. 10-2024 specifically states that the assessment “is confirmed subject to approval of the relevant ballot question by the electors at the November 5, 2024 election.” Resolution No. 01-2025 also states that “MCL 41.726(2) allows assessment rolls to be confirmed after the second public hearing as required by Act 188 (which has happened),” which further demonstrates that the special assessment was previously confirmed. Although confirmation of the assessment was subject to voter approval pursuant to the authorizing statute, MCL 41.726(3) states that “all assessments on that assessment roll shall be final and conclusive unless an action contesting an assessment is filed in a 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).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003977 Page 2 of 3 court of competent jurisdiction within 30 days after the date of confirmation.”2 MCL 211.746 similarly states that “the notice of the special assessment sent to the property owner . . . shall include . . . a statement that the owner or any person having an interest in the real property may file a written appeal of the special assessment with the state tax tribunal within 30 days after the confirmation of the special assessment roll if that special assessment was protested at the hearing held for the purpose of confirming the roll.”3 It is clear that these statutes, which must be read in pari materia, contemplate confirmation by the township or other unit of government that is levying the assessment. Confirmation subject to voter approval presents some unique challenges on appeal, procedurally speaking, but the Tribunal finds that it does not alter a taxpayer’s appeal rights--such appeals are properly filed with the Tribunal within 30 days of confirmation by the levying unit of government.4 Because the assessment is not “established” until “a majority of the electors residing in that township voting on the question approve the special assessment district,” the Tribunal finds that such appeals must be placed in abeyance pending voter approval. The Tribunal also finds that Resolution No. 01-2025 indicates that the question would be submitted to electors in the subject township on May 6, 2025, but there is no documentation indicating whether the assessment was approved and thereby established by the electors. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REINSTATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file the following within 14 days of the entry of this order: (1) written documentation indicating whether the special assessment has been approved by the electors, (2) the date that the special assessment was approved by the electors, OR in the alternative the date that the special assessment will be submitted to the electors, and (3) proof evidencing service of the documentation on Petitioner. Failure to comply with this order will result in Respondent being held in default, as provided by TTR 237. Entered: December 5, 2025 By _____________________________ ejg 2 Id. (emphasis added). MCL 41.3c(4) states that “all proceedings related to the making, levying, and collecting of special assessments authorized under this section must conform as nearly as practicable with the proceedings provided in 1954 PA 188, MCL 41.721 to 41.738.” Id. 3 Id. (emphasis added). 4 As noted by the Supreme Court, “In pari materia (or the related-statutes canon) provides that laws dealing with the same subject . . . should if possible be interpreted harmoniously.” SBC Health Midwest, Inc v City of Kentwood, 500 Mich 65, 74 n 26; 894 NW2d 535, 540 (2017) (quotation omitted).
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003977 Page 3 of 3 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