26-001372 Recon Grant Corrected Dismissal.pdf

7260 Owosso Road LLC Petitioner Vs. Township Of Cohoctah Respondent · 26-001372-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 

7260 Owosso Road LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-001372 

 

Cohoctah Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

CORRECTED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On August 25, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the 

Order of Dismissal entered in this case on August 11, 2026. In the motion, Petitioner 

states that the dismissal of this case as a duplicate appeal of MTT Docket No. 26-

001370 was in error. MTT Docket No. 26-001370 involves the valuation of the subject 

property; however, this appeal is regarding the classification of the subject property. 

 

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

demonstrated 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.1 Specifically, MTT Docket No. 26-001370 and this case, while involving the 

same subject property, address distinctly different legal issues and thus are not 

duplicative in nature. 

 

However, it is well established that the Tribunal has no authority over classification 

appeals, which are within the jurisdiction of the State Tax Commission pursuant to MCL 

211.34c(6).2 As such, the Tribunal finds that dismissal of this case remains appropriate 

given the lack of jurisdiction over this matter. 

 

Therefore, 

 

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

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order of Dismissal is CORRECTED. 

 

Entered: September 4, 2026 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Jason C. Grinnell_ 

cs 

 

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). 

2 See also MCL 205.731.

MTT Docket No. 26-001372 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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