25-003547_sadef_dis.pdf

Kimberly Blackmon, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003547-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 

Kimberly Blackmon, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003547 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

On November 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal set aside 

the default entered in this case on October 7, 2025. Respondent has not filed a 

response to the motion. 

 

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

held in default for failing to submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal.1 

Petitioner failed to respond and the Tribunal entered an order extending the time to cure 

the default on November 4, 2025, and the order was corrected on November 6, 2025. 

Having now filed a Motion to Set Aside Default that explains Petitioner never received a 

decision of the March Board of Review (BOR), Petitioner has complied with the 

Tribunal’s orders as required by TTR 237. As such, the Tribunal finds good cause to 

grant the motion and set aside the default. 

 

A protest to the March BOR is a prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over 

such properties under MCL 205.735a. Further, the Tribunal’s authority to hear an 

appeal is limited to a “direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or 

order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, 

allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state.”2 Petitioner’s 

Motion to Set Aside Default states that Petitioner protested the assessment to 

Respondent’s March BOR, as required by MCL 205.735a. However, because the BOR 

did not issue a final decision, the Tribunal lacks authority to consider Petitioner’s appeal. 

Petitioner’s contention that the Tribunal should take jurisdiction over this appeal without 

a final decision is an argument in equity. The Tribunal has no equitable power to waive 

or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and deadlines, and it therefore has 

no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested.3 

 

1 Though the initial order also defaulted Petitioner for failure to complete section 7 of the petition, this 

reason for default was vacated on November 6, 2025. 

2 MCL 205.731(a). (Emphasis added.) 

3 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025).

MTT Docket No. 25-003547 

Page 2 of 3 

 

As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise 

disregard a statutory filing requirement or deadline,4 it has no authority to grant 

Petitioner the relief requested.5 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER 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 

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 5, 2026 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

sw/jcr 

 

 

4 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). 

5 The Tribunal also has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do 

not establish a prima facie case indicating 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”). See International Place Apartments – 

IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 

425 (2006), Eltel Associates, LLC v City of Pontiac, 278 Mich App 588 (2008), and Briggs Tax Service, 

LLC v Detroit Public Schools, 483 Mich 1024 (2009).

MTT Docket No. 25-003547 

Page 3 of 3 

 

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