25-003417 corrected def.pdf
Alfa Kibbi Properties LLC, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent · 25-003417-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 Alfa Kibbi Properties LLC, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL Petitioner, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION v MTT Docket No. 25-003417 City of Detroit, Presiding Judge Respondent. Patricia L. Halm CORRECTED ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that an order holding Petitioner in default was issued on September 23, 2025, because Petitioner failed to use an updated Tribunal petition form, failed to include a copy of each of the notice giving rise to the appeal for each parcel number under appeal, i.e. Board of Review (BOR) results, and failed to pay the required filing fee for the filing of the petition.1 The Tribunal erred in the entry of this order as a copy of all the BOR results for the parcel numbers under appeal were submitted. Further, the Tribunal failed to include that the petition indicates that the properties at issue are not contiguous. As such, Petitioner must file separate petitions (including an amended petition for the above-captioned case) and pay separate filing fees for each non-contiguous parcel or file proof of contiguity within 14 days of the entry of this order.2 A list of Tribunal rules and forms can be found online at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Additionally, in the instant case, Petitioner identified its representative as “Logical Property Management LLC”, even though the submission was sent by the Law Offices of George W. Schmidt, PLLC. When the petition was processed, neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s alleged authorized representatives signed the petition as required by MCR 1.109(E), thus Petitioner’s alleged authorized representative was never added to the docket, preventing proper service of the Order of Default. As such, the Tribunal finds it necessary to reissue the September 23, 2025 Order of Default. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the default: (1) if the parcel numbers are not contiguous, file current, signed Petitions for Valuation Appeal, for each parcel number under appeal, identifying Petitioner’s authorized representative; or if the parcel numbers are contiguous, file a current, signed, Petition for Valuation Appeal, with proof of contiguity, identifying Petitioner’s authorized representative, and the requisite multiparcel form; and (2) if the parcel numbers are not contiguous, pay the required $125.00 petition filing fee for each petition 1 Although the petition indicates a $325.00 filing fee was paid with the filing of the petition, no filing fee has been received. 2 TTR 201 and 227.
Page 2
MTT Docket No. 25-003416 Page 2 of 2 being filed, or if providing proof of contiguity, pay the required $125.00 petition filing fee plus the $75.00 contiguous parcel fee. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the amended petition shall note the docket number previously assigned by the Tribunal. Unfortunately, the petition filing fees may not be made via e-filing. Failure to comply with this order will result in Petitioner being required to file a motion to set aside the default, with appropriate filing fee. Entered: October 21, 2025 By _____________________________ 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 3 “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).