25-003540Ex P Def Default Hrg Order.pdf
Sheena York, Petitioner V Township Of Mason, Respondent · 25-003540-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 Sheena York, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003540 Mason Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT ORDER FOR DEFAULT HEARING The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order holding Petitioner in default on December 17, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e., March Board of Review (BOR) results.1 Petitioner was required to cure the default by obtaining a copy of the BOR results from Respondent and filing a copy with the Tribunal within 14 days. Petitioner has had ample time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a history of deliberate delay that would justify the dismissal of the case for failure to timely comply with this order.2 Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that Respondent was placed in default on November 19, 2025, because they failed to file an answer. The Tribunal extended the time for Respondent to cure the default by an additional 14 days on December 17, 2025, and it has 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, giving careful consideration to the Grimm factors and considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that scheduling a default hearing is warranted, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate or better serve the interests of justice.3 Therefore, 1 The order further stated, “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 2 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 3 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.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003540 Page 2 of 2 IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) file a copy of the BOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.4 Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this case, as provided by TTR 237.5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a default hearing shall be scheduled in the normal course.6 Entered: January 20, 2026 By _____________________________ kac 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 4 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5). 5 See also MCL 205.732. 6 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).