25-003527 Recon.pdf
Real Estate Redevelopment LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003527-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 Real Estate Development LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003527 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Joshua M. Wease ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On January 27, 2026, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider the Order for Default Hearing (order) entered in this case on January 12, 2026. In the motion, Respondent states that the lack of response was due to a computer error. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Respondent’s motion provides no good cause to reconsider the order. The motion lacks appropriate specificity or any basis to determine that the order was in error. Given the above, Respondent 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 Respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Entered: March 4, 2026 By _____________________________ bw/gc 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 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).