26-002464 Recon Grant and Reinstate.pdf
Randy Ayyar Petitioner V Township Of Waterford Respondent · 26-002464-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 Randy Ayyar, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 26-002464 Waterford Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Joshua M. Wease ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER REINSTATING CASE ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT On July 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on June 26, 2026. In the motion, Petitioner states that the Order of Dismissal improperly claimed that the petition was not filed by the May 31, 2026 deadline, as the petition filing fee was cashed on May 19, 2026. Further, this appeal is regarding the 2026 tax year, and listing the 2025 tax year on the petition was a clerical error. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has demonstrated 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 Specifically, Petitioner timely filed a claim regarding the valuation of the subject property for the 2026 tax year pursuant to MCL 205.735a. As such, Petitioner’s valuation claim for the 2026 tax year shall be reinstated. However, the Tribunal notes that Petitioner attached a copy of an Assessor Denial of Request for Exemption as Eligible Personal Property (Small Business Taxpayer Exemption) regarding the subject parcel with the motion. Denials of a claim of exemption under MCL 211.9o must be appealed to the March Board of Review under MCL 211.30 before the Tribunal can acquire jurisdiction to review such a denial.2 Petitioner has failed to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal regarding the denial of the exemption (i.e., March Board of Review decision). As a result, the appeal regarding the denial of the exemption is not properly pending. Petitioner must provide a copy of the March Board of Review decision within 14 days of the entry of this order. Therefore, 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 Id.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 26-002464 Page 2 of 2 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is REINSTATED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a copy of the March Board of Review Decision within 14 days of the entry of this order.3 If there is no March Board of Review Decision, Petitioner shall file documentation indicating as such. Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to set aside the default (with the appropriate filing fee). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an answer within 28 days of the entry of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in Respondent being held in default.4 Entered: July 30, 2026 By: /s/ Joshua M. Wease 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 3 “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). 4 See TTR 281.