25-002343_dis_deny stip.pdf

David C Peterson, Petitioner V Township Of Ross, Respondent · 25-002343-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 

David C Peterson, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002343 

 

Ross Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner is appealing 

the subject property’s true cash, state equalized, and taxable values for parcel number 

3904-15-470-120. The petition indicates that the property is classified as residential 

real property and that Petitioner did not protest the assessment to the March Board of 

Review (BOR). Subsequently, Respondent filed an answer also indicating Petitioner did 

not protest the subject property’s assessment to the March BOR. Additionally, on 

October 9, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment. 

However, the Tribunal has no authority over the parcel under MCL 205.735a(3), 

because Petitioner failed to appeal the assessment to the March BOR prior to initiating 

an appeal to the Tribunal. A final decision of the BOR is a prerequisite for invoking the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction.1 

 

Petitioner’s failure to complete the prerequisite step to appeal to the BOR is a failure to 

invoke the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.2 In Sixarp, the Michigan 

Supreme Court reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the 

Tribunal’s jurisdiction is statutory by nature. The Court stated: 

 

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 Parkview3 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.4 

 

1 See MCL 205.731. 

2 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8. 

3 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 

4 See Sixarp at 8. (Citations omitted).

MTT Docket No. 25-002343 

Page 2 of 3 

 

The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon by the Sixarp court is applicable 

in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction prerequisite that a 

residential valuation be appealed to the March BOR prior to a petition being filed with 

the Tribunal. MCL 205.735a(3) controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The 

Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.5 “[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.6 

 

The Tribunal notes that the petition in this case contends that Petitioner did not receive 

Respondent’s Notice of Assessment. This contention of improper notice, 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.7 

Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of consent Judgment is DENIED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER 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, 

 

5 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). 

6 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 

7 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.)

MTT Docket No. 25-002343 

Page 3 of 3 

 

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: October 29, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

sw/jcr 

 

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