25-003833 Reconsideration Deny - signed.pdf

Xap Enterprises, Petitioner Vs. City Of Battle Creek, Respondent · 25-003833-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 

Xap Enterprises, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

 

City of Battle Creek, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On December 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on December 12, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with proper notice since it 

never received the notice of assessment. Further, Petitioner contends that the statutory 

deadlines for filing are tolled due to the lack of notice. 

 

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 the petition was not filed by the May 31 deadline set forth 

by MCL 205.735a(6). Although Petitioner contends that it did not receive the notice of 

assessment and refers to Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia2 to assert that the 

filing deadline never commenced, the Michigan Supreme Court recently overturned 

Parkview and 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 under MCL 205.735a 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.3 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 In the motion, Petitioner cited “Parkview Village Assoc v City of Warren, 244 Mich App 383 (2001),” 

however, the Tribunal finds that this case does not exist. Based on Petitioner’s assertions, it appears that 

Petitioner is referring to Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990). 

3 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.

MTT Docket No. 25-003833 

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: January 12, 2026 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

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

← View full record