25-002378 Extend Default.pdf
Curtis Visser, Petitioner V Township Of Gun Plain, Respondent · 25-002378-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 Curtis Visser, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, v MTT Docket No. 25-002378 Gun Plain Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER VACATING JULY 18, 2025 ORDER SETTING ASIDE PETITIONER’S DEFAULT ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT The Tribunal has considered the case file in the above-captioned case and finds that it entered an order on July 18, 2025, setting aside Petitioner’s default. However, the Tribunal erred in the entry of that order because while Petitioner timely responded to the Tribunal’s June 12, 2025 order placing Petitioner in default, Petitioner’s response was not sufficient to cure the default, as described below. Therefore, the Tribunal shall vacate the July 18, 2025 order setting aside the default. The Tribunal further finds that Petitioner was held in default because the parcel under appeal did not qualify for the Small Claims division based on classification and the amount in contention.1 Although Petitioner timely responded to the Order of Default, theattempt to cure is incomplete because Petitioner did not pay the additional petition filing fee as required in the June 12, 2025 order. The original petition filed indicated that the assessed value and taxable value in contention was greater than $100,000.00, which necessitated transfering the case to the Entire Tribunal division. However, the amended petition, filed in response to the default order, is unclear. Specifically, the values listed in paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 as established by the Board of Review and contended by Petitioner are unclear, as are the amounts in dispute, the latter of which controls both the filing fee under TTR 223 as well as Petitioner’s statutory eligibility for the Small Claims division.2 Paragraph 16 also includes confusing references to prior tax years. Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established a history of deliberate delay that would justify dismissal of the case for failure to timely comply with this order.3 Therefore, 1 The order further stated: “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 2 See MCL 205.762. 3 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002378 Page 2 of 2 IT IS ORDERED that the July 18, 2025 Order Setting Petitioner’s Default is VACATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) file an amended ET petition correcting paragraphs 16, 17, and 18 as described above, (2) pay the additional petition filing fee owed, if necessary, (3) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, (4) pay the $50.00 fee required for the filing of the motion, and (5) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of entry of this order.4 Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case or the scheduling of a default hearing, as provided by TTR 237.5 Entered: July 18, 2025 By _____________________________ bw/am 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 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5). 5 See also MCL 205.732.