25-002395 deny stp dismiss (untimely-PRE).pdf

Andy I Byler, Petitioner V Township Of Elmer, Respondent · 25-002395-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 

Andy I Byler, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002395 

 

Elmer Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER SETTING ASIDE RESPONDENT’S DEFAULT 

 

ORDER DENYING JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the case file and finds that Petitioner was held in default on 

June 12, 2025, for failing to file the correct petition for the issue under appeal and for 

failing to pay the petition filing fee. Petitioner failed to respond; thus, the Tribunal issued 

an order extending the default, allowing Petitioner an additional 14 days to respond and 

further required a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. principal residence 

exemption (PRE) denial notice.1 On August 12, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion 

requesting the Tribunal set aside their default, a $25.00 filing fee, and an amended 

petition indicating the date the denial was issued was June 21, 2024; however, 

Petitioner stated the notice was sent to the wrong address. On September 11, 2025, 

the Tribunal issued an order placing Petitioner’s motion in abeyance as Petitioner failed 

to pay the additional $25.00 filing fee due, as well as failed to file a copy of the PRE 

denial notice, and additionally held Respondent in default for failing to file an answer.2 

Without the PRE denial notice or an answer from Respondent, the Tribunal was unable 

to determine the timeliness of the appeal.3 Respondent then filed their answer which 

confirmed that the denial was issued on June 24, 2024, but that the denial was sent to 

the wrong address, and a Stipulation was forthcoming. On September 11, 2025, the 

parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Consent Judgement, but failed to pay the applicable 

$25.00 stipulation filing fee. 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the stipulation and finds that it has no authority over 

Petitioner’s appeal. The pleadings and accompanying documentation indicate that 

Petitioner is appealing Respondent’s PRE denial for Parcel No. 68-004-036-009-20 for 

the 2024 tax year. The Tribunal has no authority over that parcel under MCL 

 

1 TTR 279(3). 

2 TTR 281. 

3 MCL 211.7cc(13).

MTT Docket No. 25-002395 

Page 2 of 4 

 

211.7cc(13), however, because Petitioner failed to appeal the denial to the Tribunal 

within 35 days of that decision.4 

 

Petitioner’s failure to file the appeal by the statutory deadline is a failure to invoke the 

Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.5 In Sixarp, the Michigan Supreme 

Court reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s 

jurisdiction is statutory by nature. 

 

MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that 

governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” 

We therefore overrule Parkview6 to the extent that it incorrectly held that the 

protest requirement of . . . the precursor to MCL 205.735a . . . is a mere 

“procedural requirement for perfecting an appeal in the Tax Tribunal” and 

not an express limitation on the MTT’s jurisdiction. Instead, the protest 

requirement of MCL 205.735a(3) may only be waived by the court if 

necessary to remedy a constitutional due-process violation that deprived 

the taxpayer of their ability to invoke the right to protest.7 

 

The Tribunal finds that the same reasoning relied upon by the Sixarp court is applicable 

to MCL 211.7cc(13) in this case. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction 

requirement that an assessor denial be appealed by filing a petition with the Tribunal 

within 35 days of the day of the PRE denial. This statutory subsection, like MCL 

205.735a(3), controls the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. The Tribunal has no 

equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.8 “[S]imply because the plaintiffs' 

underlying claim has a constitutional dimension, and may even be meritorious, does not 

excuse the plaintiffs' failure to assert their claim within the applicable statutory period of 

limitation.”9 

 

The Tribunal notes that the petition contends that sufficient notice was not sent to 

Petitioner because the notice was sent to the wrong address. This contention of 

improper notice, if actionable, would require a determination by an applicable authority 

that the purported error resulted in a due process violation. As explained above, the 

Tribunal lacks any equitable authority to consider a potential due-process violation. 

Jurisdiction as a result of a failure of a unit of government to comply with a statutory 

obligation, if there was any, may be vested upon the Tribunal by a judicial body only as 

 

4 MCL 211.7cc(13) states in pertinent part: “An owner may appeal a denial by the assessor of the local 

tax collecting unit under subsection (6) . . . to the residential and small claims division of the Michigan tax 

tribunal within 35 days of that decision.” 

5 See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich __; __ NW3d __ (2025) (Docket No 166190) at 8. 

6 Parkview Memorial Ass’n v City of Livonia¸ 183 Mich App 116; 454 NW2d 169 (1990). 

7 See Sixarp at 8 (citations omitted). 

8 The Tribunal’s powers are limited to those authorized by statute and do not include powers of equity. 

See 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). 

9 See Szymanski v City of Westland, 420 Mich 301, 303; 362 NW2d 224, 225 (1984).

MTT Docket No. 25-002395 

Page 3 of 4 

 

a matter of equity.10 Lacking jurisdiction, the only appropriate action is dismissal. 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED Petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Default is DENIED 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s default has been SET ASIDE. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment is 

DENIED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

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 motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, 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: September 16, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac/jcr 

 

10 See Sixarp at 4, 8. The court held respectively that “the Court of Appeals remedied the violation by 

vesting the MTT with jurisdiction to consider the exemption claim as a matter of equity” and that Petitioner 

was required to demonstrate that Respondent deprived it of its right to constitutional due process to 

invoke this court’s jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.)

MTT Docket No. 25-002395 

Page 4 of 4 

 

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