26-000172_recon.pdf

Hamdan Sharaf, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000172-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 

Hamdan Sharaf, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000172 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On March 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the 

dismissal entered in this case on February 25, 2026. In the motion, Petitioner states the 

Tribunal erroneously “dismissed based on the application of the July 31 filing deadline 

application . . . .” Petitioner contends the petition was timely filed from the December 9, 

2025 December Board of Review (BOR) decision. 

 

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

not demonstrated a palpable error relative to the dismissal of the case. The Tribunal’s 

dismissal references the filing deadline of July 31, but also references that the petition 

was not filed within 30 days of the issuance of a July or December BOR decision, as 

required by MCL 211.53c. In this case, the December BOR decision was issued on 

December 9, 2025, and the petition was filed on February 5, 2026, 58 days after the 

December BOR decision. As such, the petition was not timely and this case was 

properly dismissed. 

 

Given the above, Petitioner has not 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 

 

Therefore, 

 

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

 

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 claim of appeal with 

the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final 

 

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).

MTT Docket No. 26-000172 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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: March 17, 2026 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

sw/sb 

 

 

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