24-003526 POJ.pdf

Rodney E Drouse, Petitioner V Township Of Garfield, Respondent · 24-003526-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 

 

 

Rodney E Drouse, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

 

Garfield Township, 

 

Case Type: Qualified Agricultural 

 Respondent. 

 

Exemption 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

April 30, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Rodney Drouse 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Respondent’s assessor denied the QAE in the 2023 Notice of Assessment, Taxable 

Valuation, and Property Classification. Petitioner appealed the denial to the 2024 

March Board of Review (BOR). 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 13, 2024, and Respondent did not 

file an answer. 

 

On November 14, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for 

failing to file an answer and extended the time to cure the default on December 23, 

2024. Respondent failed to cure its default; therefore, the Tribunal scheduled and 

conducted a default hearing in this case. 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether the subject property is qualified to receive a QAE 

under MCL 211.7ee. 

 

MCL 211.7ee provides as follows: 

(1) Qualified agricultural property is exempt from the tax levied by a local 

school district for school operating purposes to the extent provided under 

section 1211 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1211, 

according to the provisions of this section. . . .

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 2 of 5 

 

(4) For property classified as agricultural, and upon receipt of an affidavit 

filed under subsection (2) for property not classified as agricultural, the 

assessor shall determine if the property is qualified agricultural property 

and if so shall exempt the property from the collection of the tax as 

provided in subsection (1) until December 31 of the year in which the 

property is no longer qualified agricultural property as defined in section 

7dd. An owner is required to file a new claim for exemption on the same 

property as requested by the assessor under subsection (2). . .. 

(7) If the assessor of the local tax collecting unit believes that the property 

for which an exemption has been granted is not qualified agricultural 

property, the assessor may deny or modify an existing exemption by 

notifying the owner in writing at the time required for providing a notice 

under section 24c. A taxpayer may appeal the assessor's determination 

to the board of review meeting under section 30. A decision of the board 

of review may be appealed to the residential and small claims division of 

the Michigan tax tribunal. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 12 of the docket 

maintained in this case.1 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioner contends that the subject 

classification changed from qualified agricultural to residential improved. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that they owned this parcel for over 20 

years with four assessors, and it was always classed agricultural. The new assessor 

changed it to residential improved and claimed the tillable acreage was not 50%. 

Petitioner was frustrated because the agricultural use is not based on tillable footage 

but instead on total acreage including rights of ways and other features as 

demonstrated in Exhibit C, page 3, second paragraph. Petitioner alleges the assessor 

improperly determined through use of aerial imagery. Petitioner’s map demonstrates 

the northern part of the property has a power line easement, the southern part has a 

rails to trails easement, and the center has drainage. Each is considered part of the 

acreage. Exhibit B shows the areas for ag use highlighted, including the northern area. 

The white outline is the circumference of the area deemed agricultural use. It is 27.5 

acres. The parcel is the area in white, plus the area in the southeast up to the edge of 

the roadway. Exhibit E shows the yellow marks as road entrances to the property, the 

green dots are the rails to trails, and the blue dots are the drainage. The north drains 

down to this property, then head west. 

 

 

1 The docket is located on the Tribunal’s website at Tax Docket Lookup Search Page and may be 

accessed by entering the docket number assigned to this case.

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 3 of 5 

 

Petitioner contends they wanted to separate a couple of acres to a new parcel to get to 

50%. Petitioner states that Respondent required a survey, but Petitioner is unsure what 

needs to be surveyed. Petitioner met the assessor and supervisor to discuss, and after, 

Petitioner was told the subject meets the 50% criteria. Petitioner contends the subject’s 

highest and best use is as agricultural property, and it should be classified that way. 

Petitioner contends that the classification was changed to agricultural property in 2025. 

Petitioner requests the same for past years. Petitioner believes the Tribunal should go 

back two years and relieve taxes. 

 

Petitioner also contends that there are errors on the record cards. The pictures in 

Exhibit I show the building has no electric and a non-functioning well. The heating 

system is forced air heat and ducts. Parts of the land are low and swampy. It cannot 

be used or spun off. 

 

Petitioner contends that, in 2023 and 2024, the land was used for taking hay. 

 

Petitioner requests relief for taxes, time, effort, and stress. 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

The following facts were proven by a preponderance of the evidence: 

 

1. The subject property is located at S McKinley Ave., Garfield Township, Clare 

County. 

2. The subject property is classified as residential. 

3. Petitioner owns the subject property. 

4. The assessor removed the subject’s qualified agricultural exemption via a 

classification change on the 2023 Notice of Assessment. 

5. Petitioner appealed the subject property’s classification change to the 2024 

March BOR. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The following authority and reasoned opinion supports the Tribunal’s determination: 

 

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims for either tax year. 

Instead, the unrebutted testimony and evidence on the record supports a conclusion 

that dismissal is the only appropriate action. 

 

Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony and evidence establishes that the subject received the 

qualified agricultural exemption for many prior years, including 2022, as a result of its 

prior classification as agricultural property.2 A denial of that exemption status was made 

by the assessor in the issuance of the 2023 Notice of Assessment indicating that the 

property classification changed to residential. There was no indication of lack of receipt 

 

2 MCL 211.7ee(2).

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 4 of 5 

 

of that notice. The denial comports to the manner required by statute.3 However, 

Petitioner did not appeal the denial to the March BOR as required by statute.4 As such, 

the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over tax year 2023. 

 

Petitioner then appealed the 2024 Notice of Assessment to Respondent’s March BOR. 

However, the Tribunal finds that the March BOR had no authority over Petitioner’s 

appeal. Specifically, because there was no exemption on the property denied for tax 

year 2023, Petitioner was instead required to submit an application claiming the 

exemption for the assessor by May 1 of the tax year at issue, and then, if denied, 

appeal that denial to Respondent’s July or December BOR. Petitioner did not do so, 

and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s exemption claim. Petitioner’s appeal 

to the 2024 March BOR was considered as a classification appeal, which was then 

appealed by Petitioner to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has no authority to 

consider a classification appeal, which is the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Tax 

Commission.5 The Tribunal lacks authority to consider an appeal where it lacks the 

authority over the decision made by the government unit rendering the final decision.6 

As such, the Tribunal also lacks jurisdiction over tax year 2024. 

 

Finally, the Tribunal notes that it has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard 

a statutory requirement or filing deadline, and as a result, it has no authority to grant 

Petitioner the relief requested.7 Petitioner’s remaining arguments that the qualify for the 

exemption based on the merits cannot be considered where the Tribunal lacks 

jurisdiction. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

JUDGMENT 

 

This is a proposed decision and not a final decision. As such, no action should be taken 

based on this decision. 

 

After the expiration of the time period for the opposing party to file a response to the 

exceptions, the Tribunal will review the case file, including the Proposed Opinion and 

Judgment (POJ) and all exceptions and responses, if any, and: 

 

a. Issue a Final Opinion and Judgment (FOJ) adopting the POJ as a Final 

Decision; 

b. Issue an FOJ modifying the POJ and adopting the Modified POJ as a Final 

Decision; or 

 

3 MCL 211.7ee(7). 

4 Id. 

5 MCL 211.34c(6). 

6 See Michigan Properties, LLC V Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518 (2012). 

7 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).

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 5 of 5 

 

c. Issue an Order vacating the POJ and ordering a rehearing or such other 

action as is necessary and appropriate. 

 

EXCEPTIONS 

 

The parties have 20 days from the “Entered” date below to notify the Tribunal in writing, 

by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the POJ and to state in writing 

why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to the POJ). Exceptions must 

be signed and are limited to the evidence submitted prior to or at the hearing and any 

matter addressed in the POJ. There is no fee for filing exceptions. 

 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their exceptions and file proof of 

service with the Tribunal (i.e., submit a written statement indicating that the opposing 

party has been provided or “served” with a copy of the exceptions). Service on the 

opposing party can be made by mail, or if agreed to by the parties, by electronic service 

(i.e., email). The proof of service must be signed. 

 

The opposing party has 14 days from the date the exceptions are served on that party 

to file a written response with the Tribunal. Responses to exceptions must be signed. 

Parties must provide the opposing party with a copy of their response to the exceptions 

and file a signed proof of service with the Tribunal. 

 

If the parties fail to sign their exceptions or responses, or if they fail to submit a signed 

proof of service for the exceptions and/or responses, the Tribunal may not consider the 

exceptions or responses in issuing the FOJ. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _________________________________ 

Entered: May 15, 2025 

 

 

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