24-003386 Recon.pdf

Fs Associates LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 24-003386-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 

FS Associates LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003386 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Marcus L. Abood 

 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

On January 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal (order) entered in this case on January 8, 2025. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that neither Petitioner nor their attorney received a copy of the 

Tribunal’s December 5, 2024 Order Extending Time for Petitioner to Cure Default. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

not shown good cause to grant the motion. Petitioner’s response at this late juncture is 

wholly insufficient to support a finding that the Tribunal palpably erred in its dismissal. 

Petitioner’s response does not show legal error in the order. Petitioner’s response does 

not address Petitioner’s failure to respond to the November 7, 2024 Order Placing 

Petitioner in Default. Petitioner’s response fails to cure the default because it does not 

include materials previously requested by the Tribunal and of which Petitioner now has 

indisputable notice, including an amended petition, additional required petition filing fee, 

proof of service of the petition under TTR 221, a motion to set aside default, or proof of 

service of a motion to set aside default. 

 

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.1 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 

 

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).

MTT Docket No. 24-003386 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By 

 

 

Entered: February 24, 2025 

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