24-003383 amend.pdf
Deborah Coklow, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003383-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 Deborah Coklow, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003383 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO AMEND PETITION On May 7, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal permit it to amend the petition filed in this case. In the motion, Petitioner states that they listed the wrong parcel number, and the correct parcel number is 06002469 (1197 Longfellow). Respondent has not filed a response to the motion. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that “a petition or answer may only be amended by leave of the tribunal.””1 Nevertheless, “[l]eave to amend must . . . be freely given when justice so required . . . .”2 The Michigan Supreme Court has held that “a motion to amend should be granted unless one of the following particularized reasons exists: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or dilatory tactics, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, or (5) futility.”3 Given that the instant motion wasn’t filed until 22 days prior to the May 29, 2025 hearing, which left insufficient time for the filing of a response and issuance of an order prior to hearing,4 the Tribunal finds undue delay in the filing of the motion. More importantly, however, just as parties cannot substitute or add wholly new and different parties by way of a motion to amend,5 Petitioner cannot substitute or add a wholly new and different parcel of real property to this proceeding. The referenced error is not merely typographical in nature, as evidenced by the vastly different parcel identification numbers and street addresses for the properties.6 Consequently, not only is the appeal of Parcel No. 06002469 barred by the statute of limitations, having not been filed on or before July 31, 2024, it also appears that Petitioner did not protest that property’s 1 TTR 227(1). 2 Id. 3 Ford Motor Co v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 447 (2006) (citation omitted). 4 See TTR 231. 5 Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102, 107; 730 NW2d 462, 464 (2007) (citations omitted). 6 Petitioner also specifically provided the March Board of Review Decision for parcel 13000513 (3142 Woods Circle) with the original petition.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003383 Page 2 of 2 assessment to the March 2024 Board of Review, as required by MCL 205.735a.7 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Petition is DENIED. Entered: June 27, 2025 By _____________________________ ejg/sb 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 7 Petitioner provided only a copy of the assessment notice for this parcel with the Motion to Amend.