26-002475 Reconsideration Deny.pdf

Vincent Nystrom Petitioner V City Of Marquette Respondent · 26-002475-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 

Vincent Nystrom, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-002475 

 

City of Marquette, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On September 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal 

reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on September 17, 2026. In the 

motion, Petitioner states it did not received the 2026 notice of assessment until after the 

March Board of Review (BOR). Petitioner contends that the Michigan Supreme Court’s 

decision in Sixarp, LLC v Byron Township does not render the March BOR protest 

requirement absolute when an opportunity to protest was denied due to lack of notice.1 

Specifically, Petitioner contends that the Sixarp decision provided for an exception of 

jurisdictional protest requirements when there is a violation depriving a taxpayer of their 

ability to protest “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.”2 As such, the Tribunal should 

reinstate this matter to address the exception set forth in Sixarp and Petitioner’s 

unrebutted evidence regarding the lack of notice. 

 

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

failed to demonstrate 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.3 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal because Petitioner failed to protest the assessment to Respondent’s 

March Board of Review. Despite Petitioner’s contention that it did not timely receive 

assessment notices and interpretation of Sixarp arguing that the protest requirement 

can be waived when there is a due-process violation that deprives a taxpayer of their 

right to protest, the provision of Sixarp cited by Petitioner actually reaffirms that the 

Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to assume jurisdiction in cases presenting 

potential due-process violations when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal 

 

1 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). 

2 Id. at 15. See Petitioner’s Exhibit A. 

3 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. 26-002475 

Page 2 of 2 

 

under MCL 205.735a have not been met, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only 

be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body with powers of equity.4 

 

The cited provision and following language indicate that the waiver of the jurisdictional 

protest requirements of MCL 205.735a to remedy a due process violation must come 

from the Court’s judicial power, and not from the Tribunal which lacks equitable 

authority to do so “[petitioner] must demonstrate that respondent deprived it of its right 

to constitutional due process to invoke this Court’s judicial power to waive the 

jurisdictional requirements.”5 Furthermore, the Sixarp decision overturned Parkview 

Memorial Association v City of Livonia,6 as cited by Petitioner and the prior Tribunal 

cases cited by Petitioner to support their contentions all pre-date the Sixarp decision 

and are thus not binding or persuasive in this matter. 

 

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 

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: October 16, 2026 

 

 

By: /s/ Joshua M. Wease 

cs 

 

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 

 

 

 

4 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also 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), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized 

by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

5 Sixarp, at 15. (Emphasis added.) 

6 Id. See also Parkview Memorial Assoc’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990).

← View full record