24-003714 recon.pdf
Salvatore Scigliano, Petitioner V Township Of Commerce, Respondent · 24-003714-TT
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 Salvatore Scigliano, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 24-003714 Commerce Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Jason C. Grinnell ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On October 28, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on October 9, 2024. In the motion, Petitioner states that the house is under construction, and it is estimated at $500,000 if sold in current condition. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that it issued a Notice of No Action (NNA) on October 31, 2024, indicating that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was not properly pending because Petitioner did not file proof evidencing service of the motion on Respondent.1 The NNA indicated that the Tribunal would not take action on the motion unless Petitioner filed proof of service within 14 days. The notice further indicated that if proof of service was not filed within 14 days, Petitioner would be required to refile the motion with the required filing fee and proof of service. Petitioner did not respond to the NNA until February 3, 2025.2 Consequently, the motion is still not properly pending despite proof of service having now been provided. Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds that requiring Petitioner to re-file the motion would not facilitate the efficient administration of justice because as discussed below, they have failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was corrected.3 The Petition filed in this matter on July 25, 2024, indicates that the property at issue is classified as residential; it also indicates that Petitioner did not protest the property’s assessment at the March Board of Review. A protest to the March Board of Review is a prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over such properties under MCL 205.735a. As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or 1 See TTR 225. 2 Petitioner also filed a second response on February 11, 2025. 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).
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 24-003714 Page 2 of 2 otherwise disregard a statutory filing requirement or deadline,4 it has no authority to consider the substance of Petitioner’s appeal.5 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. 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: February 24, 2025 By _______________________________ ejg 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 4 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). 5 The Tribunal also has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal under MCL 211.53a, as the facts alleged do not establish a prima facie case indicating 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”). See International Place Apartments – IV v Ypsilanti Township, 216 Mich App 104 (1996), Ford Motor Company v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425 (2006), Eltel Associates, LLC v City of Pontiac, 278 Mich App 588 (2008), and Briggs Tax Service, LLC v Detroit Public Schools, 483 Mich 1024 (2009).