26-000200 Reconsideration Deny.pdf
Andrew Nesbitt, Petitioner V Township Of Porter, Respondent · 26-000200-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 Andrew Nesbitt, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-000200 Porter Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On March 16, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on March 9, 2026. In the motion, Petitioner states the previous township assessor assigned a higher taxable value to their property following a combination for the 2023 tax year. Further, similar surrounding properties have taxable values 50% lower than the subject property. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.1 The Tribunal properly concluded that it has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal because Petitioner failed to protest to the March Board of Review and file a petition with the Tribunal on or before July 31 for each of the tax years at issue as Petitioner filed on February 27, 2026 protesting claims pertaining to the 2023, 2024, and 2025 tax years. Although Petitioner contends that there were issues with the previous assessor as it pertains to the assessment of the subject property, the Michigan Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to assume jurisdiction in cases presenting potential due-process violations when the statutory requirements for filing an appeal have not been met, and that jurisdiction in such cases may only be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body with powers of equity.2 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 1 See MCR 2.119(F)(3). A palpable error is one that is “easily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, or manifest.” Luckow v Luckow, 291 Mich App 417, 426 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2 Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__ (2025). See also 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), noting that the Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-000200 Page 2 of 2 APPEAL RIGHTS If you disagree with the final decision in this case, 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: April 2, 2026 By: /s/ Jason C. Grinnell_ cs 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