25-002869 Extend Default (response).pdf
Charles H Roach, Petitioner V City Of Eastpointe, Respondent · 25-002869-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 Charles H Roach, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-002869 City of Eastpointe, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL On September 16, 2025, Petitioner filed Notice of Assessments for the 2024 and 2025 tax years in response to the Tribunal’s September 9, 2025 Order of Default. The Tribunal has considered the response and the case file and finds that Petitioner was held in default because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e., March Board of Review (MBOR) results.1 Although Petitioner timely responded to the Order of Default, their attempt to cure is incomplete because Petitioner filed a copy of the Notice of Assessments for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. Tribunal rules require Petitioner to file a copy of the action taken by the MBOR with the filing of the petition, as attending the MBOR is a prerequisite in invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.2 As such, the Notice of Assessments provided by Petitioner are not sufficient in setting aside the default.3 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.4 Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is appealing assessments for the 2024 and 2025 tax years; however, the Tribunal has no authority over the 2024 assessment under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed by July 31, 2024. Additionally, the Tribunal also has no authority over the 2024 assessment, as the facts alleged do not establish that the assessment was 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”). Rather, the facts alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact. 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 TTR 279(3) and MCL 205.735(a). 3 A list of Tribunal rules can be found online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 4 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002869 Page 2 of 2 IT IS 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 a copy of the MBOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, (3) pay the $25.00 fee required for the filing of the motion, and (4) file proof the motion was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.5 Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by TTR 237.6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 TAX YEAR only. Entered: November 4, 2025 By _____________________________ kac 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 5 “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). 6 See also MCL 205.732.