Full record / 26-000405 Extend Default (response).pdf

26-000405 Extend Default (response).pdf

Brady Town Petitioner V Township Of Handy Respondent · 26-000405-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.

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 

Brady Town, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000405 

 

Handy Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONDENT TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

On July 11, 2026, Respondent filed an answer in response to the Tribunal’s June 30, 

2026 Order of Default. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the response and the case file and finds that Respondent 

was held in default because Respondent failed to file an answer.1 Although 

Respondent timely responded to the Order of Default, their attempt to cure is 

incomplete because Respondent failed to complete section 2 of the answer form. 

Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, 

Respondent’s failure to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and 

Procedure has established a history of deliberate delay that would justify the scheduling 

of a default hearing for failure to timely comply with this order.2 

 

Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is appealing an assessment for the 2025 

tax year and the Tribunal has no authority over that assessment under MCL 205.735a, 

as the petition was not timely filed.3 Further, the Tribunal also has no authority over that 

assessment, as the facts alleged do not establish that the assessment was the result of 

a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical 

nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and 

relied on by both parties”).4 Rather, the facts alleged indicate a valuation dispute that 

does not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact. 

 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Respondent to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

 

1 The order further stated, “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

2 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

 

3 See Electronic Data Systems Corporation v Township of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002). 

4 See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104, 109 (1996), Ford 

Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425, 442 (2006).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000405 

Page 2 of 2 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file a completed amended answer, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, and 

(3) file proof the motion was served on Petitioner. The foregoing must be filed with the 

Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this order.5 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in the scheduling of a default hearing, as 

provided by TTR 237.6 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY 

DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue for the 2026 tax year only. 

 

 

Entered: September 4, 2026 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

kac 

 

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 

 

 

 

5 “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5). 

6 See also MCL 205.732.

PDF reading copy

← View full record