26-000052_Recon deny.pdf

Marsha Clanton, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000052-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 

Marsha Clanton, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000052 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On February 17, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 29, 2026. In the motion, 

Petitioner states feel that the Tribunal should reconsider the order because Petitioner 

cannot control the mail delivery system, and Petitioner has limited income from 

Supplemental Security Income and has trouble affording current bills. 

 

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 appeal within 30 days of the December 

Board of Review Decision.2 Although Petitioner contends that they did not timely 

receive the notice of assessment, 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 

under MCL 211.53c 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 See MCL 211.53c. 

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. 26-000052 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By

 

Entered: February 24, 2026 

smm 

 

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