25-003690_recon.pdf

McLaughlin Family Trust, Petitioner V Township Of Woodstock, Respondent · 25-003690-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 

McLaughlin Family Trust, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003690 

 

Woodstock Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On November 21, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the dismissal entered in this case on October 31, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner states 

that the appeal was premised on a qualified error and, therefore, the Tribunal has 

authority to grant the relief requested. 

 

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

merely restating the arguments stated in the petition. Further, the issues raised in the 

motion were considered by the Tribunal in rendering the dismissal of this case. Even 

though Petitioner’s protest to the July Board of Review (BOR) was couched in terms of 

being a “qualified error,” the July BOR determined it did not have authority as the issues 

were actually valuation claims; in other words, not a clerical error or mutual mistake of 

fact. Thus, because Petitioner’s issues were outside the confines of a “qualified error,” 

as defined in MCL 211.53b, Petitioner’s issues were required to be protested to the 

March BOR prior to filing the appeal with the Tribunal. Since it was not, the Tribunal 

has no authority over this appeal and the dismissal was proper. 

 

Given the above, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the 

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 

decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry 

 

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. 25-003690 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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: December 15, 2025 

 

 

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