25-003532 partial dismissal.pdf
Linda Lewis, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003532-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 Linda Lewis, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003532 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT NOTICE OF NO ACTION The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner filed this appeal on July 30, 2025, disputing the true cash and taxable values of Parcel Nos. 272409.25 (Parcel 25) and 21000060.022 (Parcel 22) for the 2024 and 2025 tax years. The Tribunal has no authority over the 2024 tax year because Petitioner failed to protest Parcel 25’s assessment to the 2024 March Board of Review and file a petition with the Tribunal for that parcel on or before July 31, 2024.1 Petitioner appealed Parcel 22 to both the 2024 March Board of Review and the Tribunal, and the appeal of that parcel for the 2024 tax year in this case is therefore both untimely and duplicative.2 As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and deadlines, the 2024 tax year is properly dismissed for both parcels. The Tribunal further finds that Petitioner failed to properly complete the petition. Specifically, Petitioner failed to complete the “Valuation Information” sections of both the petition and the multiple parcel attachment form, which requires Petitioner to identify their contentions of value for the property. Petitioner also failed to provide a copy of the March 2025 Board of Review Decision for Parcel 22. Finally, the Tribunal notes Petitioner identified Angela Pinchem as their authorized representative in Section 2 of the petition form; however, that individual did not sign the petition, as required by TTR 229. As such, Angela Pinchem has not properly appeared 1 See MCL 205.735a. The Tribunal also has no authority under MCL 211.53a because 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”). 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). Further, though MCL 211.53b provides July and December boards of review with authority to correct qualified errors, Petitioner is not appealing an action taken by any such board. 2 See Docket No. 24-004091.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003532 Page 2 of 2 on behalf of Petitioner and an appearance must be filed.3 Until an appearance is filed, the answer, evidence, and all other documentation must be served on Petitioner and not Angela Pinchem. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED with respect to the 2024 tax year. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 tax year. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) file a complete, amended petition, and (2) file a copy of the March 2025 Board of Review Decision for Parcel 21000060.022. The amended petition must note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal in this case and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, must be filed on the assigned docket number as an “Amended Petition.” The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall TAKE NOTICE that the answer, evidence, and all other documentation must be served on Petitioner and not Angela Pinchem until an amended petition signed by Angela Pinchem or other appearance is filed in this matter. Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee). Entered: October 10, 2025 By _____________________________ ejg/sb 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 3 See TTR 229(1). 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).