25-003355 Dismiss.pdf
Bake Treats, Petitioner V City Of Southfield, Respondent · 25-003355-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 Bake Treats, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003355 City of Southfield, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER VACATING SEPTEMBER 9, 2025 ORDER OF DEFAULT ORDER OF DISMISSAL The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal. The pleadings and accompanying documentation indicate that Petitioner is appealing the taxable value and exempt status for Parcel No. 76-99-09- 015-805 for the 2025 tax year. The Tribunal has no authority over that parcel under MCL 211.9o(2)(a), however, because Petitioner failed to appeal to the March Board of Review (BOR) and then appeal the BOR decision to the Tribunal within 35 days of that decision.1 The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to “direct review of a final decision,” and here, there is no final decision to review.2 Petitioner’s failure to file the appeal by the statutory deadline is a failure to invoke the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.3 In Sixarp, the Michigan Supreme Court reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is statutory by nature. MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” We therefore overrule Parkview4 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere “procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.5 1 MCL 211.9o(2)(a) states in pertinent part: “An appeal of a denial by the March board of review may be made by filing a petition with the Michigan tax tribunal within 35 days of the denial notice.” 2 See MCL 205.731(a). 3 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8. 4 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia¸ 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 5 See Sixarp at 8 (citations omitted).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003355 Page 2 of 3 The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon by the Sixarp court is applicable to MCL 211.9o(2)(a) in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction requirement that an assessor denial be appealed to the BOR, or alternatively that a submission be appealed directly to the BOR, and that the BOR decision be appealed by filing a petition with the Tribunal within 35 days of the BOR decision. This statutory subsection, like MCL 205.735a(3), controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.6 “If an assessment for a particular tax year is not protested to the Board and appealed to the Tribunal via timely petition, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider challenges to that tax year.”7 “[S]imply because the plaintiffs' underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and may even be meritorious, does not excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim within the applicable statutory period of limitation.8 The Tribunal notes that the petition in this case contends that the assessor failed to properly act upon a timely application for exemption. This contention of Respondent’s failure to process an exemption application, if actionable, would require a determination by an applicable authority that the purported error resulted in a due-process violation. As explained above, the Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. Jurisdiction as a result of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory obligation, if there was any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as a matter of equity.9 Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Finally, the Tribunal notes that Petitioner filed the wrong petition and paid the wrong petition filing fee in this case. However, because the case is subject to dismissal, the default order requiring Petitioner to submit those items shall be vacated. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the September 9, 2025 Order of Default is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 6 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. See Federal-Mogul Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 161 Mich App 346 (1987), Elec Data Sys Corp v Flint Twp, 253 Mich App 538 (2002), and VanderWerp v Plainfield Twp, 278 Mich App 624 (2008). 7 See Forbes v City of Ann Arbor, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued May 11, 2023 (Docket No 361648). 8 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 9 See Sixarp at 4, 8. The court held respectively that “the Court of Appeals remedied the violation by vesting the MTT with jurisdiction to consider the exemption claim as a matter of equity” and that Petitioner was required to demonstrate that Respondent deprived it of its right to constitutional due process to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.)
Page 3
MTT Docket No. 25-003355 Page 3 of 3 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: September 16, 2025 By _____________________________ bw/gc 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