25-003040 Extend Default PD.pdf
Daveion Martin, Petitioner V City Of Warren, Respondent · 25-003040-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 Daveion Martin, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003040 City Of Warren, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order holding Petitioner in default on September 23, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the March Board of Review (BOR) results.1 Petitioner must obtain a copy of the BOR results from Respondent and then submit a copy to the Tribunal. A list of Tribunal Rules can be found online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Petitioner was required to cure the default within 14 days, has had ample time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a history of deliberate delay that would justify the dismissal of the case for failure to timely comply with this order.2 Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner filed this appeal on July 31, 2025, disputing the true cash and taxable values of Parcel No. 12-13-31-402-039 for the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax years. On September 26, 2025, Respondent filed their answer, which states that while Petitioner did appeal the subject property to the 2025 March BOR, Respondent requests that the past years being appealed be dismissed as untimely. Here, the Tribunal finds it has no authority over these tax years, as MCL 205.735(a) ambiguously requires a petition be filed by July 31 of each tax year involved.3 The Tribunal also finds it has no authority under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do not establish that the assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).4 And though MCL 211.53b provides July and December boards of review with the authority to correct qualified errors, there is no evidence that Petitioner appeared before Respondent’s July 1 The order further stated, “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 2 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 3 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 4 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003040 Page 2 of 2 or December Board of Review or appealed an action taken by any such board. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) file a copy of the March BOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.5 Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by TTR 237.6 IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with respect to the 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 tax years. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 tax year only. Entered: October 20, 2025 By _____________________________ kac 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 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5). 6 See also MCL 205.732.