25-003564_recon.pdf

Andrew H Petersen, Petitioner V Township Of Golden, Respondent · 25-003564-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 

Andrew H Petersen, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003564 

 

Golden Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On October 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on October 9, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states they are resubmitting the petition that was previously mailed prior to 

the July 31 deadline. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner is 

appealing a decision of Respondent’s 2025 March Board of Review. Given that the 

subject property is classified as residential real property, the petition was required to be 

filed by July 31, 2025. In this case, the petition was filed on August 5, 2025. Petitioner 

claims the petition was mailed prior to the deadline; however, the envelope containing 

the petition was not postmarked by the post office. Therefore, according to TTR 225(5), 

“[a] submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is considered filed on 

the date the submission is received by the tribunal.” The petition was received by the 

State of Michigan on August 5, 2025, as evidenced by the money stamp imprinted on 

page one of the petition. Therefore, Petitioner’s petition was not timely filed. Given the 

above, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the dismissal that 

misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different 

disposition if the error was corrected.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

 

1 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, 

noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation 

marks and citation omitted).

MTT Docket No. 25-003564 

Page 2 of 2 

 

of the final decision, it is an “appeal by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be 

filed with the Tribunal to certify the record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: February 19, 2026 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

sw/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

← View full record