24-003609_SD.pdf

Craig Cotterman, Petitioner V Roscommon County Board Of Commissioners, Respondent · 24-003609-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 

Craig Cotterman, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

 

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners, 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On October 10, 2024, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal enter 

summary disposition in its favor and dismiss the case. In the Motion, which was filed 

pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), Respondent contends that the Tribunal lacks subject-

matter jurisdiction over the appeal. As such, Respondent is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS 

 

Respondent contends that that the special assessment at issue in this appeal is levied 

under part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). 

Respondent states that the Tribunal lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the disputed 

special assessment because (1) the appeal was not timely filed, and (2) the governing 

statutes grant sole authority over such appeals to circuit courts rather than the Tribunal. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition, thus the 

Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a decision on such 

motions.1 In this this case, Respondent moves for summary disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4). Dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate when the “court lacks 

jurisdiction of the subject matter.” When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4), the Tribunal must consider any and all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, 

admissions, and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.2 In addition, the 

 

1 See TTR 215. 

2 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 2 of 4 

 

evidence offered in support of or in opposition to a party’s motion will “only be 

considered to the extent that the content or substance would be admissible as evidence 

to establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion.”3 A motion under MCR 

2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative 

remedies.4 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and finds that subject-matter jurisdiction is 

defined as “jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the 

extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. — 

Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter; jurisdiction of the cause; jurisdiction over 

the action; jurisdiction ratione materiae. Cf. personal jurisdiction.”5 MCL 205.731 

provides that “[t]he tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction” over proceedings “for 

direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency 

relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or 

equalization, under the property tax laws of this state,” as well as those “for a refund or 

redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this state.”6 The Tribunal 

also has jurisdiction over “any other proceeding provided by law.”7 

 

The subject special assessment was not levied “under the property tax laws of this 

state,” but under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Section 

30714 of the Act states that “the special assessment roll with the assessments listed 

shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court within 15 days after county 

board approval,”8 and Section 30701 defines "court" as “a circuit court, and if more than 

1 judicial circuit is involved, the circuit court designated by the county board or 

otherwise authorized by law to preside over an action.”9 Although the timeliness of the 

appeal is irrelevant for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction, and is more properly 

considered under MCR 2.116(C)(7), which provides for summary disposition when an 

appeal is barred by the statute of limitations, the plain language of the Act grants sole 

authority over such disputes to circuit courts rather than the Tribunal.10 The Tribunal 

and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as much, and 

the timeliness of the appeal is therefore irrelevant.11 “A court which has determined that 

 

3 MCR 2.116(G)(6). 

4 See Citizens for Common Sense in Gov’t v Attorney Gen, 243 Mich App 43; 620 NW2d 546 (2000). 

5 JURISDICTION, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 MCL 324.30714(4). 

9 MCL 324.30701(c). 

10 MCR 2.116(C)(7) provides for summary disposition when a claim is barred because of “release, 

payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, an agreement 

to arbitrate or to litigate in a different forum, infancy or other disability of the moving party, or assignment 

or other disposition of the claim before commencement of action.” Id. 

11 See Usl Improvement Ass’n v Oceana County Drain Comm’r, unpublished per curiam opinion of the 

Court of Appeals, issued March 13, 2012 (Docket Nos. 297157 and 298080) and Grossman v Oakland

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 3 of 4 

 

it has no jurisdiction should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”12 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves the last pending claim and closes the 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

Entered: November 22, 2024 

 

sw/bm 

 

 

 

 

County Bd of Comm’Rs & Oakland County Water Res Comm’r, unpublished per curiam opinion of the 

Court of Appeals, issued July 1, 2014 (Docket No. 314531). 

12 Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243 (1985). Petitioner has also 

failed to cure the default entered in this case on November 1, 2023.

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 4 of 4 

 

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