25-003116.pdf
Midtown Hotel Group, LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003116-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
RECEIVED -— TE 0CT 14205 W\~ STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Midtown Hotel Group, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, v Court of Appeals Case No. City Of Detroit, MTT Docket No. 25-003116 Respondent-Appellee. Stewart Mandell (P33781) Kevin C. Richard (P43417) Jackie J. Cook (P68781) City of Detroit Law Department Christina Grossi (P67482) Attorneys for Respondent-Appellee Honigman LLP Coleman A. Young Municipal Center Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant 2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Detroit, MI 48226 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5151 (313) 237-3061 (313) 465-7420 richkc@detroitmi.gov slmandell@honigman.com jcook@honigman,.com cgrossi@honigman.com Notice of Filing Claim of Appeal TO: Chief Clerk Michigan Tax Tribunal 611 W. Ottawa Lansing, MI 48933 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 14, 2025, the attached Claim of Appeal was filed electronically with the Court of Appeals.
Page 2
JIS Code: COA
STATE OF bIGAL DISTRICT
CASE NO.
CIRCUIT
Michigan
Tax
Tribunal
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
gan
Tax
Tribuna
COUNTY
CLAIM OF APPEAL
DISTRICT
3.003116
[/]IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
PROBATE
Court address
Court telephone no.
Plaintiffs/Petitioner’s name(s) and address(es)
[¥] Appetiant
Midtown Hotel Group, LLC
Olappeltes
Defendant's/Respondent’s nama(s) and address(es)
[i] Appellant
City of Detroit
¥] Appetiee
Plaintiff's attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no.
Stewart L. Mandell (P33781), Jackie J. Cook {P68781),
Christina Grossi (P67482), Honigman LLP, 39400 Woodward
Avenue, Suite 101, Bloomfield Hills, M1 48304,
(313) 465-7420, {248) 566-8474
Defendant's attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no.
Kevin Richard {P43417), City of Detroit Law Department,
CAYMC - 2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500, Detroit, MI 48226,
{313) 237-3061
In the matter of
Other Interested party(ies) of probate matter
1. Midtown Hotel Group LLC
Name
September 25, 2025
in the Michigan Tax Tribunal
claims an appeal from a final judgment or final order entered on
Court of the State of Michigan,
Date
Court name and number or county
by
Odistrictjudge
Cloircuitjudge
[probate judge
[district court magistrate
Presiding Judge Patricia L. Halm
P48096
.
Name of judge or district court magistrate
Bar no.
2. Bondon appealis
[lfiled.
attached.
[Jwaived.
[inotrequired.
3 . Oa. The transcript has been ordered.
[1b. The transcript has been filed,
¢. No record was made.Page 3
Clalm of Appeal (9/23) Page al Case No, 25-003116 714. THIS CASE INVOLVES (Ja. ACONTEST AS TO THE CUSTODY OF A MINOR CHILD. Ob. ANADULT OR MINOR GUARDIANSHIP UNDER THE ESTATES AND PROTECTED INDIVIDUALS CODE OR UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE. [Jc AN INVOLUNTARY MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT CASE UNDER THE MENTAL HEALTH CODE. Wd. ARULING THAT A PROVISION OF THE MICHIGAN CONSTITUTION, A MICHIGAN STATUTE, A RULE OR REGULATION INCLUDED IN THE MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, OR ANY OTHER ACTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT IS INVALID. Je. AN ADOPTION ORDER UNDER CHAPTER X OF THE PROBATE CODE, Jf. AFREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ISSUE. 10/14/2025 Stewart L, Mandell Date Appellant/Attorney signature PROOF OF SERVICE | certify that copies of this claim of appeal and bond (if required) were served on Kevin Richard on 10/14/2025 by [personal service. first-class mail. Name Date on by [personal service. [lfirst-class mail. Name Date on by [personal service. [first-class mail. Name Date 10/14/2025 /s/ Lisa Joseph Dale Signature
Page 4
Michigan Court of Appeals
Lower Court/Tribunai: Michigan Tax Tribunal
Jurisdictional Checklist
25-003116
Lower Court Case No.:
case Name: Midtown Hotel Group, LLC v City of Detroit
INSTRUCTIONS: For
a civil claim of appeal, please complete the following statements.
[SELECT ONE] An appeal of right may be filed because the order is:
MCR 7.203(A)
]
A final order of the circuit court under MCR 7.202(6). Specify subsection:
A probate court order that falls within MCR 5.801(A). Specify subsection:
MI Const. ant 6, sec 28; MCL 205.7531); MCR 7.203(A)(2)
Appealable as of right by law or court rule. Specify law or rule;
[SELECT ONE] This claim of appeal is timely because it is being filed:
MCR 7.204(A)
Within 21 days from entry of the order appealed from (as identified above).
[]
Within 21 days of an order deciding a motion for new trial, rehearing, reconsideration, or other relief from
the order appealed, and the postiudgment motion was filed within 21 days of the order appealed from.
]
Other:
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete the checklist and file with your claim of appeal.
Failure to file all required documents and requisite fees may result in rejection of
MCR 7.201(B)(2)
your claim of appeal.
A signed claim of appeal. The caption must list all of the parties in each lower court
MCR 7.204(B)(1) & (D)
case appealed,
A copy of the order you are appealing (as identified in Jurisdiction section).
MCR 7.204(C)(1)
An official current register of actions from the lower court or tribunal showing entry
MCR 7.204(C)(5)
of the order appealed.
The filing fee or exception (example: motion to waive fees).
MCR 7.202(3),
MCR 7.204(B)(2)
Evidence of the transcript (Select one):
MCR 7.204(C)}(2)
J The complete transcript has been ordered.
MCR 7.210(B){1)(a)
No transcript will be filed.
MCR 7.204(C)(2)Page 5
Order Appealed
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON |. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR Midtown Hotel Group LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 25-003116 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm 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 indicate that Petitioner is appealing the true cash value, state equalized value, and taxable value (TV) for Parcel No. 01004205.001 for the 2025 tax year. The Tribunal has no authority over that parcel under MCL 205.735a(6), however, because the subject property is classified as commercial and, as such, the deadline for filing an appeal in this case was June 2, 2025.1 Petitioner filed the petition on August 7, 2025, and as such, failed to appeal the assessment to the Tribunal by the statutory deadline. Petitioner's failure to file the appeal by the statutory deadline is a failure to invoke the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding? 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 Parkview? 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. The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon by the Sixarp court is applicable to MCL 205.735a(8) in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction
Page 7
MTT Docket No. 25-003116 Page 20of 3 requirement that a commercial property valuation appeal be filed with the Tribunal by May 31 of the tax year under appeal. 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.’ “[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.” The Tribunal notes that the petition in this case contends that Petitioner did not receive the notice of assessment until [after July 6, 2025." Petitioner also pleads that there is a dispute as to loss,® and the Tribunal notes that any potential contention affecting TV requires a “mandatory and automatic” review to properly consider the determination of TV.® Notwithstanding, these contentions 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. The Tribunals 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.’® As opposed to what is stated in the petition in this case, reliance on Parkview is not appropriate as that case was overruled by Sixarp."' Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the 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 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). 8 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984). 7 Petition at paragraph 11. 8 Id. at paragraph 9.
Page 8
MTT Docket No. 25-003116 Page 3 of 3 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 25, 2025 By alicia Hadi bw/am 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
Page 9
Official Current Tax Tribunal Register of Actions
Page 10
Michigan Tax Tribunal
Ucensing and Regulatory Asics
Mi.gov Home
Contact the Tribunal
Tax Tribunal Home
Tax Docket Lookup
Dockot Numbor: [25 5031617
Judge:
|No Judge ssdgned
Tax Docket Information:
Status;
Respondent: [Cy of Detrall
Divtston: [£7
Full Vito: [Midtcems Hote) Gicup, LLC, Petitioner vs.
ParceisAssessments
+ Download niks are available oa the right below,
01005205001
‘Acton Infomation
Ling.
Uno
Enter DatorPest
Rolatod
3
Subject
Fiter
Rot
ork
Foo
tem
6
Prock
of service of petition was received.
PET
ON2512025
Download
5
Order of Damissal
ON2wW2025
Oownload
Petition has been serificd
PET
2
o8200025
Uownlond
3
Notice
of Cackst Number ET
0/2012025
Dowrioad
z
A prRtition yes receives,
PET
CHOW20ES
Downicad
'
£1 Case Info Sheet
CHOY
S60000
Bownoxd
Hack
New Search
Copyright
Departme
2025 State
Migov Homa
Podos
Accossitiity
Dissbiity Resources
Sateide FONDIDCANY (orn
of
(htips:fwww michigan gov)
| (hEpehwwer.
| (https
vm)
|
{irtpe:/hwwwi michigan. govidisabiltyresourcas)
| (htipadfwawrichigan gavitola}
|
of govemm io
Michigan
|Page 11
Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant HONIGMAN LLP By: /s/ Stewart L. Mandell Stewart L. Mandell (P33781) Jackie J. Cook (P68781) Christina Grossi (P67482) 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (248) 566-8474 slmandell@honigman.com jcook@honigman.com Dated: October 14, 2025 cgrossi@honigman.com Certificate of Service The undersigned states that she is employed by Honigman LLP and on October 14, 2025, she served a copy of the Notice of Filing Claim of Appeal and Claim of Appeal upon the Michigan Tax Tribunal, by way of hand-delivery to the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s address of 611 W. Ottawa, Lansing, MI 48933, [s/ Lisa Joseph Lisa Joseph Dated: October 14, 2025