Order_for_Default_Hearing-FTA.2025-06-24_07-27-36.0000.pdf
Deborah Coklow, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003383-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 Deborah Coklow, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003383 City of Detroit, Respondent. ORDER FOR DEFAULT HEARING The Tribunal has considered the file in the above-captioned case and finds that Respondent was placed in default on June 2, 2025, for failing to appear at a duly- scheduled hearing. Even though Respondent failed to comply with the Order, the Tribunal must consider Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury1 prior to scheduling a default hearing. In Grimm, the Michigan Court of Appeals summarized factors that the Tribunal must consider before imposing the sanction of dismissal. Those factors are: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.2 Though Grimm was specific to the sanction of dismissal, the cases cited by the Court, and the reasoning behind its adoption of the factors set forth therein are not so narrow. The factors apply equally to default judgements, or in the case of the Tribunal proceedings, the conducting of a default hearing.3 Respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing and failure to comply with the Order of Default has established a history of deliberate delay. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that the scheduling of a default hearing is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate. Therefore, 1 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 2 Id. at 149. 3 See Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds by Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 (2008), Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501 (1995), and Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276 (1998).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003383 Page 2 of 4 IT IS ORDERED that a default hearing shall be scheduled in the normal course. By:___________________________________ Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair Entered: June 24, 2025 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 3
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 Deborah Coklow, Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003383 City of Detroit, Respondent. ORDER FOR DEFAULT HEARING The Tribunal has considered the file in the above-captioned case and finds that Respondent was placed in default on June 2, 2025, for failing to appear at a duly- scheduled hearing. Even though Respondent failed to comply with the Order, the Tribunal must consider Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury4 prior to scheduling a default hearing. In Grimm, the Michigan Court of Appeals summarized factors that the Tribunal must consider before imposing the sanction of dismissal. Those factors are: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice.5 Though Grimm was specific to the sanction of dismissal, the cases cited by the Court, and the reasoning behind its adoption of the factors set forth therein are not so narrow. The factors apply equally to default judgements, or in the case of the Tribunal proceedings, the conducting of a default hearing.6 Respondent’s failure to appear at the hearing and failure to comply with the Order of Default has established a history of deliberate delay. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that the scheduling of a default hearing is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate. Therefore, 4 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 5 Id. at 149. 6 See Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds by Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 (2008), Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501 (1995), and Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276 (1998).
Page 4
MTT Docket No. 24-003383 Page 4 of 4 IT IS ORDERED that a default hearing shall be scheduled in the normal course. By:___________________________________ Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair Entered: June 24, 2025 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