24-003369 Dismissal.pdf
Lawton Ave Holdings, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003369-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 Lawton Ave Holdings, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003369 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner was initially placed in default on September 2024, because Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition and also failed to pay the full required fee for the filing of the petition. On October 1, 2024, the Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by an additional 14 days and they failed to respond. On February 5, 2025, the case was dismissed for failure to comply with or respond to the previous two orders. However, on the same day an order was entered vacating the February 5, 2025 Order of Dismissal and the October 1, 2024 Order Extending Petitioners Default, dismissing claims for future tax years, and reissuing the September 5, 2024 Order of Default. The Tribunal reissued the default since the Tribunal erred in serving those orders on Petitioner. A corrected Order Holding Petitioner in Default was issued because Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition, failed to pay the required fee for the filing of the petition, and failed to file proof evidencing service of the petition. Petitioner did not file a response to this order. On March 3, 2025, the Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by an additional 14 days and they failed to respond. Petitioner has not complied with either the February 5, 2025 corrected order or the March 3, 2025 Order Extending Default, and the latter stated that “failure to comply with this Order shall result in the dismissal of the case . . .” and referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.1 In Grimm, the Michigan Court of Appeals summarized factors that the Tribunal should consider before imposing the sanction of dismissal. Those factors are: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.2 Here, Petitioner’s failure to comply with multiple orders has established a history of 1 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 2 Id. at 149.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003369 Page 2 of 3 deliberate delay. Despite the Tribunal’s initial error by not providing Petitioner with proper notice of their default status, Petitioner has still established a history of deliberate delay and refusal to comply with previous orders since they did not respond to the February 5, 2025 order that corrected the error or the March 3, 2025 Order Extending Default. Both of these orders provided Petitioner with an opportunity and instruction on how to cure default. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that dismissal is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate in light of Petitioner’s history of noncompliance in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 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 motion for reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. Alternatively, 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. Entered: April 11, 2025 By _____________________________ cs
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 24-003369 Page 3 of 3 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