24-004068 Show Cause Summary_Dismissal.pdf

Monroe Capital Holding LLC, Petitioner Vs. City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-004068-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 

Monroe Capital Holding LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004068 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

SUMMARY OF SHOW CAUSE HEARING 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

A show cause hearing was scheduled before Administrative Law Judge Kari L. Miles on 

January 16, 2026, because Petitioner failed to timely file and exchange a valuation 

disclosure and prehearing statement. Petitioner and Respondent failed to appear at the 

show cause hearing. 

 

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 251(8): “If a party fails to comply with the order 

scheduling the prehearing conference or a prehearing general call order, the prehearing 

conference must commence as a show cause hearing to provide the party with an 

opportunity to justify their failure to comply with the order.” In this case, the Prehearing 

General Call and Order of Procedure (PHGC) was issued on February 18, 2025. As 

provided by that PHGC, the parties were required to file and serve a valuation 

disclosure and prehearing statement by September 19, 2025. Petitioner failed to file 

and serve a valuation disclosure and prehearing statement as required by the PHGC. 

Therefore, a show cause hearing was scheduled. 

 

Submission of valuation disclosures is governed by TTR 241(1), which provides that “[a] 

party’s valuation disclosure in a property tax contested case must be submitted 

to the tribunal and the opposing parties as ordered by the tribunal.” 

 

In this case, the PHGC expressly stated that “[v]aluation disclosures will not be admitted 

into evidence unless disclosed and furnished in accordance with this Order (even 

though admissible) except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.” Because 

Petitioner did not submit a valuation disclosure as ordered by the PHGC, Petitioner 

violated TTR 241(1). 

 

Submission of prehearing statements is governed by TTR 241(2), which provides that:

MTT Docket No. 24-004068 

Page 2 of 5 

 

A party shall submit to the tribunal and the opposing parties a prehearing 

statement, as required by [TTR 251]. The prehearing statement must 

provide the opposing parties and the tribunal with the name and address of 

any person who may testify at hearing and a general summary of the subject 

area of their testimony. A person who is not disclosed as a witness is not 

permitted to testify, unless the tribunal permits the testimony to be taken for 

good cause shown.1 

 

TTR 251(2) provides that “[e]ach party shall submit a prehearing statement as ordered 

by the tribunal. The prehearing statement must be signed, and on a form made 

available by the tribunal or in a written form that is in substantial compliance with the 

tribunal’s form.” Thus, by not submitting and exchanging a prehearing statement as 

ordered by the PHGC, Petitioner violated TTR 241(2) and TTR 251(2). 

 

As for witness testimony, the PHGC, like TTR 241(2), provided explicit instructions. 

Specifically, the PHGC stated that “[w]itnesses will not be allowed to testify unless 

disclosed in the Prehearing Statement and the Prehearing Statement is furnished in 

accordance with this Order except upon a finding of good cause by the Tribunal.” TTR 

259(2) provides further instruction regarding witnesses. Specifically, TTR 259(2) states 

that: 

 

Without leave of the tribunal, a witness may not testify as to the value of 

property without submission of a valuation disclosure signed by that witness 

and containing that witness’ value conclusions and the basis for those 

conclusions . . . The expert witness may not testify as to the value of the 

property at issue unless the expert witness submitted a valuation disclosure 

signed by that expert witness.2 

 

Petitioner failed to attend the show cause hearing, violating the Tribunal’s order, which 

specifically states that the hearing shall begin as a show cause hearing and that failure 

to attend “will be considered a failure to appear.” 

 

In summary, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner did not abide by the deadlines established 

in the PHGC. The PHGC gave Petitioner adequate notice that valuation disclosures not 

filed and exchanged by the deadline would not be admitted at hearing except upon a 

finding of good cause. The Tribunal finds that Petitioner failed to attend the show cause 

hearing and, as such, failed to provide an explanation for not complying with the PHGC. 

 

Additionally, the PHGC gave Petitioner adequate notice that by not filing and 

exchanging a prehearing statement, Petitioner’s witnesses would not be allowed to 

testify except upon a finding of good cause. The Tribunal finds that Petitioner has not 

shown good cause as to why its prehearing statement was not filed and exchanged; 

therefore, its witnesses will not be allowed to testify. Moreover, as discussed, TTR 

259(2) prohibits a witness from testifying about the value of property unless a valuation 

 

1 Id. (emphasis added.) 

2 Id.

MTT Docket No. 24-004068 

Page 3 of 5 

 

disclosure has been submitted “signed by that witness and containing that witness’ 

value conclusions and the basis for those conclusions.” Because Petitioner has not 

submitted a valuation disclosure, Petitioner has no witnesses able to testify as to the 

subject property’s value. 

 

In a valuation appeal, the petitioner “has the burden of proof in establishing the [TCV] of 

the property.”3 “This burden encompasses two separate concepts: (1) the burden of 

persuasion, which does not shift during the course of the hearing, and (2) the burden of 

going forward with the evidence, which may shift to the opposing party.”4 Although the 

Tribunal has a duty to make an independent determination of value,5 the Michigan Court 

of Appeals has held that this duty “arises only when the petitioner has met its burden of 

going forward with evidence.”6 Therefore, “if a petitioner fails to come forward with 

competent evidence to challenge the assessed values of the property, then the 

tribunal's duty to make an independent determination of true cash value is not 

triggered.”7 Thus, while the Tribunal may not “automatically accept a respondent’s 

assessment,”8 it may, upon motion or its own initiative, enter an involuntary dismissal if 

the petitioner fails to meet the burden of going forward.9 

 

In this case, the consequence of Petitioner’s failure to meet the filing deadlines is that 

Petitioner has no valuation disclosure and no witness to testify as to the subject 

property’s value. With no valuation disclosure or evidence of the subject property’s 

value, Petitioner is not capable of challenging the subject property’s assessed values or 

of meeting its burden of going forward with the evidence. 

 

With that, the Tribunal must determine how to proceed in this case. In 618 South Main 

LLC v City of Ann Arbor,10 the Court held that the sanction of dismissal is within the 

Tribunal’s discretion. However, before dismissing a case, a trial court is required to 

 

3 MCL 205.737(3). 

4 Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348, 354–55; 483 NW2d 416, 420 (1992). 

5 See Alhi Dev Co v Orion Twp, 110 Mich App 764, 767; 314 NW2d 479, 481 (1981). 

6 Dicastal N Am, Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued 

August 22, 2024 (Docket No. 365333), citing Great Lakes Div of Nat'l Steel Corp v City of Ecorse, 227 

Mich App 379, 408-410; 576 NW2d 667, 680-681 (1998). 

7 Id. The Court further stated that it “will not assess the credibility of witnesses, and the determination of 

the weight to be given the evidence is within the Tax Tribunal’s discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). See 

also Country Meadows, GP v Macomb Twp, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, 

issued April 1, 1997 (Docket No. 182305), wherein the Court held: “Plaintiffs cite Jones & Laughlin . . . for 

the proposition that even when the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the tribunal must still make 

an independent determination of the true cash value of the property in question. However, unlike the 

plaintiff in Jones & Laughlin, in the present case plaintiffs did not meet their burden of going forward with 

evidence. Under the circumstances, the tribunal could not make an independent determination of the true 

cash value of the property because it had no evidence on which to base such a determination except that 

provided by defendant. A contrary holding would be tantamount to requiring the tribunal to hire its own 

appraiser.” Id. (citations omitted). 

8 Jones & Laughlin, 193 Mich App at 355-356. 

9 See MCR 2.504(B)(2). See also Jones & Laughlin at 354-355, and Great Lakes, 227 Mich App at 408-

410. 

10 618 South Main LLC v City of Ann Arbor, unpublished per curiam decision of the Michigan Court of 

Appeals, issued January 11, 2018 (Docket No 336862).

MTT Docket No. 24-004068 

Page 4 of 5 

 

evaluate all available options on record and conclude that the sanction of dismissal is 

just and proper.11 Therefore, the Tribunal shall consider the factors set forth in Grimm v 

Dep’t of Treasury.12 Those factors are: 

 

(1) [W]hether 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.13 

 

Here, Respondent would be prejudiced if it were forced to incur the time and expense of 

an Entire Tribunal hearing in a case in which Petitioner will be unable to meet its burden 

of going forward with the evidence at hearing due to the exclusion of its valuation 

disclosure and its inability to call witnesses to testify as to the subject property’s value.14 

Further, Petitioner has not attempted to cure the defects and Petitioner’s failure to file 

and exchange a valuation disclosure and prehearing statement and failure to appear at 

the show cause hearing have deliberately delayed this proceeding. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal finds that because Petitioner is unable to meet its burden 

of going forward with the evidence, there is no lesser sanction than dismissal of this 

case that would best serve the interests of justice. As such, involuntary dismissal 

pursuant to TTR 201 and MCR 2.504(B)(1) is warranted. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this 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 

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 

 

11 Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501; 536 NW2d 280 (1995). 

12 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140; 810 NW2d 65 (2010). 

13 Id. at 149. 

14 See Dicastal North America Inc v City of Greenville, unpublished per curiam decision of the Michigan 

Court of Appeals, issued August 22, 2024 (Docket No 365333).

MTT Docket No. 24-004068 

Page 5 of 5 

 

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: January 23, 2026 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

km/gc 

 

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