24-003536 Recon.pdf

Lawrence A Shaheen, Petitioner V Township Of Hartland, Respondent · 24-003536-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 

Lawrence A Shaheen, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003536 

 

Hartland Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Mark Perry 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On November 12, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Partial Dismissal (order) entered in the above-captioned case on 

September 25, 2024. In the motion, Petitioner states that the Tribunal and Respondent 

have failed to specify rules for changes on the record card. Issues with the record card 

were not fixed for a long time. 

 

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

merely restating the arguments previously presented. The issues raised in the motion 

were considered by the Tribunal in the rendering of the order. The Tribunal has no 

equitable authority to grant relief not allowed by statute.1 For each tax year, a party in 

interest is required to appeal a residential assessment to the March Board of Review 

and then file the appeal with the Tribunal by July 31.2 The Tribunal also has no 

authority under MCL 211.53a because the facts alleged do not establish that the 

assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, 

typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous 

belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”).3 Although Petitioner alleges a 

mistake, there is no indication that the mistake involved a mutual belief or a 

typographical error. Though MCL 211.53b provides July and December boards of 

review with the authority to correct qualified errors for one prior tax year, Petitioner did 

not appear before Respondent’s July or December Board of Review or appeal an action 

taken by any such board. 

 

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

order that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different 

disposition if the error was corrected.4 Therefore, 

 

 

1 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See 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). 

2 MCL 205.735a(3), (6). 

3 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006). 

4 See MCR 2.119.

MTT Docket No. 24-003536 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

 

 

 

Entered: December 4, 2024 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

← View full record