26-000226 Recon.pdf

Michelle Booth-Foster, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 26-000226-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 

Michelle Booth-Foster, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000226 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On March 28, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the 

Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on March 24, 2026 and reinstate the 

case. In the motion, Petitioner states that the Tribunal should permit this case to 

proceed because Petitioner had no notification of Respondent’s audit for two years after 

issuance of the denial notice. Respondent mailed the notice to an incorrect address. 

 

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 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 it was not filed within 35 days of the date on Respondent’s notice as 

required by law.2 Although Petitioner contends that they had no awareness of the audit 

for two years and that the notice was mailed to the wrong address, 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 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 MCL 211.7cc(13). 

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. 26-000226 

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: April 9, 2026 

 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Marcus L. Abood 

bw 

 

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