25-002678 Martin v Chikaming_Recon.pdf
Jim Martin, Petitioner V Township Of Chikaming, Respondent · 25-002678-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 Jim Martin, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-002678 Chikaming Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Marcus L. Abood ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On July 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on July 9, 2025. In the motion, Petitioner states that they have no record of receiving the valuation in time to appeal the subject property’s valuation to the March Board of Review. Petitioner indicated that they are new, part-time Michigan residents, and receive mail at two locations: Michigan and Kansas. Petitioner stopped receiving mail after returning from Kansas, and Petitioner was unaware of the timing for the issuance of the Notice of Assessment or when to protest the assessment. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner’s petition indicated that they did not protest to the Board of Review. As a result, the Tribunal issued an Order of Dismissal, indicating that “Petitioner failed to protest the assessment to Respondent’s March Board of Review, as required by MCL 205.735a.” Although Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration states that they had no record of receiving the Notice of Assessment prior to the March Board of Review, Petitioner’s contention that the Tribunal should take jurisdiction over this appeal without a final decision from the Board of Review is an argument in equity. The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity.1 The Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and deadlines, and it therefore has no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested.2 Given the above, 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.3 Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 1 See Electronic Data Systems Corp v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538; 656 NW2d 215 (2002) and VanderWerp v Plainfield Charter Twp, 278 Mich App 624; 752 NW2d 479 (2008). 2 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 3 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).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-002678 Page 2 of 2 This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 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: September 15, 2025 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