24-004172 Recon Update.pdf

Daniel J Stanuszek, Petitioner V City Of Saginaw, Respondent · 24-004172-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 

Daniel J Stanuszek, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004172 

 

City of Saginaw, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER CORRECTING DOCKET 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On March 15, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the 

Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on February 7, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states they qualify for the exemption, and they did not know that Tribunal 

orders would be served by email. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that it shall exercise 

its discretion under TTR 261 to consider Petitioner’s untimely motion. Documents 

attached to the motion indicate that the petition listed the wrong Respondent, and as a 

result, it is appropriate to enter an order updating the docket to indicate that Respondent 

is the entity that denied the exemption. As for the merits of the motion, the Tribunal 

finds that the motion shall be denied. Petitioner has not shown good cause for their 

failure to timely respond to multiple Tribunal orders, including the dismissal order. The 

petition instructions clearly indicate, under the label “IMPORTANT,” that all 

documentation and orders shall be served on the party by email if an email address is 

provided. Further, although Petitioner attached documents to the motion, Petitioner still 

has not submitted a copy of the notice giving rise, which is the denial order issued by 

Respondent. Petitioner bears the duty in Tribunal proceedings to provide that 

document.1 

 

Given the above, 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.2 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the docket shall be CORRECTED to reflect City of Saginaw as the 

proper Respondent in this case. 

 

 

1 TTR 279(3). 

2 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).

MTT Docket No. 24-004172 

Page 2 of 2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entered: April 3, 2025 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

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