26-000785_def hrg.pdf

Greenfield Lofts LLC Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit Respondent · 26-000785-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 

Greenfield Lofts LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000785 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER FOR DEFAULT HEARING 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Respondent was placed 

in default on August 28, 2026, for failing to file an answer. On September 25, 202, the 

Tribunal issued an order extending the time for Respondent to cure the default by an 

additional 14 days. To date, Respondent failed to respond or submit the required 

filing(s). Given this failure, the Tribunal finds that Respondent’s violation was willful. It 

also establishes a history of deliberate delay and refusing to comply with Tribunal rules 

and orders, both of which have prejudiced Petitioner. As a result, after giving careful 

consideration to the Grimm factors and considering all options in determining what 

sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that a default hearing is warranted, and a 

lesser sanction would not be appropriate or better serve the interests of justice.1 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that a default hearing shall be scheduled in the normal course.2 

 

 

Entered: October 21, 2026 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

sw/sb 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). Though Grimm was specific to the sanction 

of dismissal, the cases cited by the Court, and the reasoning behind its adoption of the factors set forth 

therein are not so narrow. The factors apply equally to default judgements, or in the case of the Tribunal 

proceedings, the conducting of a default hearing. See Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16 (1999), overruled 

in part on other grounds by Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 

(2008), Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501 (1995), and Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276 

(1998). See also TTR 237. 

2 A “default hearing" is “a hearing at which the defaulted party is precluded from presenting any testimony, 

offering any evidence, and examining the other party's witnesses.” TTR 203(e).

MTT Docket No. 26-000785 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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