24-003649 recon.pdf
William Crawford, Lori Crawford, Petitioners V Township Of Horton, Respondent · 24-003649-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 William & Lori Crawford, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioners, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003649 Horton Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On December 5, 2024, Petitioners filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case the same day.1 In the motion, Petitioners state that the Tribunal’s default orders were sent to spam and auto deleted, and Petitioners were therefore unaware that they were in default. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioners have failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.2 The case was dismissed because Petitioners failed to provide a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, as required by TTR 277, or timely respond to the default orders entered on October 4, 2024 and November 6, 2024. Though Petitioners have now responded and provided a copy of the March Board of Review (BOR) decision, that decision, along with the other documentation on file, establishes that the Tribunal has no authority over Petitioners’ appeal. Petitioners are seeking a principal residence exemption (“PRE”) for the 2024 tax year. Petitioners are not appealing the denial of a PRE by the local taxing authority or other authorized agency, however, but rather are attempting to apply directly to the Tribunal for the exemption. The BOR decision provided by Petitioners states: “Corrected physical attributes; assessor will correct PRE - MBOR does not have jurisdiction PRE will be set at the value of the residential property vs commercial. 484,529 VS 132,393 = 79%.”3 The BOR correctly noted that it lacked authority over the property’s PRE, and pursuant to MCL 205.731, the Tribunal’s authority is limited to “a proceeding for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state.”4 If there is no final decision, finding, ruling, determination or order, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction or authority, and “a court which 1 The Tribunal has construed Petitioners’ motion to set aside default as a motion for reconsideration because it was postmarked the same day the Order of Dismissal was entered. 2 See MCR 2.119. 3 Id. Emphasis added. 4 MCL 205.731(a).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003649 Page 2 of 2 has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”5 Petitioners were required, rather, to file a PRE affidavit with the assessor of the local tax collecting unit.6 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioners’ 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 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. By Entered: December 18, 2024 ejg 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 5 Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243; 134 NW2d 146 (1985). 66 MCL 211.7cc(19) was amended July 11, 2022 to grant assessors sole authority over the processing of PRE affidavits “for the current calendar year or the immediately preceding 3 calendar years.” Id.