25-002424 Recon.pdf

Henkel Corporation, Petitioner Vs. City Of Madison Heights, Respondent · 25-002424-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 

Henkel Corporation, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002424 

 

City of Madison Heights, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On September 4, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on August 19, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that they encountered technical issues with the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system. Petitioner sought to create an account on June 2, 2025, and sought assistance 

to do so but was not able to complete the process on that date. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that it has no 

authority over Petitioner’s appeal. The petition for the subject’s 2025 assessment was 

not filed by the statutory deadline of June 2, 2025.1 The petition was filed on June 13, 

2025. The Legislature created a statutory jurisdiction requirement that a commercial 

valuation appeal be filed with the Tribunal by a set deadline. MCL 205.735a controls 

the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over an appeal. Petitioner contends that the appeal was not 

timely due to an issue creating an account on the Tribunal’s e-filing system. However, 

the Tribunal has no equitable power to disregard a statutory filing deadline.2 

 

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.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 MCL 205.735a(6), (8). 

2 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). 

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).

MTT Docket No. 25-002424 

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: September 17, 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