25-002415 Set Aside Default.pdf
Todd M Boorsma, Petitioner V Township Of Martiny, Respondent · 25-002415-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 Todd M Boorsma, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-002415 Martiny Township, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT On September 19, 2025, Respondent filed a motion requesting the Tribunal set aside the default entered in this case on July 24, 2025. Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion. The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Respondent was held in default because they did not file an answer. Respondent timely responded but failed to cure default and the Tribunal entered an order extending the time to cure on September 8, 2025. Having now filed the completed answer, Respondent has complied with the Tribunal’s orders as required by TTR 237.1 As such, the Tribunal finds good cause to grant the motion and set aside the default. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED. Entered: October 21, 2025 By _____________________________ cs 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 The Tribunal notes that Respondent referenced a stipulation in their answer. However, on July 11, 2025, the Tribunal entered an Order Denying Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment which held “because this Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment is no longer pending before the Tribunal, a new stipulation is required for any future settlement.” Thus, if the parties wish to settle this matter, a new stipulation must be filed for consideration and entry by the Tribunal.