26-000176.pdf
Phillice Stenzel, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000176-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 October 27, 2026 Phillice Stenzel 3058 Springle Street Detroit, MI 48215 Re: MTT Docket No. 26-000176 Dear Mr. Stenzel: The Michigan Tax Tribunal has received your second Motion for Reconsideration, filed on March 1, 2026, requesting reconsideration of the February 27, 2026 Order of Dismissal. TTR 261(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration of any decision or order may be “filed within 21 days of the entry of the decision or order sought to be reheard or reconsidered.” Your motion is precluded because the Tribunal’s rule does not provide for the filing of multiple Motions for Reconsideration. Additionally, the Tribunal’s rule regarding reconsideration mirrors the applicable Michigan Court Rule, MCR 2.119(F), and the Michigan Court of Appeals has, likewise, held that the court rule does not provide for the filing of multiple Motions for Reconsideration.1 As such, your only recourse is to appeal the Tribunal’s order to the Michigan Court of Appeals. If you have any questions regarding this or any other Tribunal matter, please contact me at the Tribunal. Respectfully, /s/ Samantha Maria Snow Welton Chief Clerk 1 See Kecskes v Paramount Newport Corp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 16, 2001 (Docket No. 214844).