Christopher Wright, Petitioner V City Of Detroit, Respondent

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 

Christopher Wright, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that the 2024 tax year was 

severed into this case from the Final Opinion and Judgment issued in MTT Docket No. 

23-002927 on September 13, 2024. Petitioner was ordered to file a severed docket 

petition within 21 days of that order. Petitioner was given ample time to respond, but no 

petition was filed. On January 14, 2025, the Tribunal entered an order placing 

Petitioner in default. Petitioner was given an additional 14 days to cure the default, and 

they did not respond. Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the latter stated 

that failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this case. 

 

In Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury,1 the Michigan Court of Appeals summarized factors that 

the Tribunal should consider before imposing the sanction of dismissal. Those factors 

are: 

 

(1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party's history of 

refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the 

opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) 

the degree of compliance with other parts of the court's orders; (6) 

attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better 

serve the interests of justice.2 

 

Here, Petitioner’s failure to comply with multiple orders has established a history of 

deliberate delay and prejudice to the opposing party. As a result, giving careful 

consideration to the factors involved and considering all options in determining what 

sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal finds that dismissal is appropriate, and a lesser 

sanction would not be appropriate in light of Petitioner’s history of noncompliance in this 

case. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

This Order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this case. 

 

1 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

Page 2 of 2 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

If you disagree with the final decision in this case, you may file a motion for 

reconsideration with the Tribunal or a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of 

Appeals. 

 

A motion for reconsideration must be filed with the Tribunal with the required filing fee 

within 21 days from the date of entry of the final decision. Because the final decision 

closes the case, the motion cannot be filed through the Tribunal’s web-based e-filing 

system; it must be filed by mail or personal service. The fee for the filing of such 

motions is $50.00 in the Entire Tribunal and $25.00 in the Small Claims Division, unless 

the Small Claims decision relates to the valuation of property and the property had a 

principal residence exemption of at least 50% at the time the petition was filed or the 

decision relates to the grant or denial of a poverty or disabled veterans exemption and, 

if so, there is no filing fee. You are required to serve a copy of the motion on the 

opposing party by mail or personal service or by email if the opposing party agrees to 

electronic service, and proof demonstrating that service must be submitted with the 

motion. Responses to motions for reconsideration are prohibited and there are no oral 

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, 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 13, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

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

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

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 

Christopher Wright, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that the Tribunal severed the 

above-captioned docket from docket number 23-002927 on September 13, 2024. The 

order severing this case required Petitioner to file a petition pertaining to the 2024 tax 

year within 21 days of entry of the order. Petitioner failed to respond or submit a 

petition. Though the Tribunal finds an extension of time to file the petition is appropriate 

under TTR 231(1), Petitioner shall be placed in default. Additionally, Petitioner’s failure 

to comply with Tribunal orders and its Rules of Practice and Procedure has established 

a history of deliberate delay that would justify the dismissal of this case for failure to 

timely comply with this order.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must file a petition pertaining to the 2024 tax 

year within 21 days of entry of this Order. The petition shall note the docket number 

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2024 tax year and, if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2024 docket number as a “Severed Petition.” 

 

Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case.2 

 

 

 

Entered: January 14, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

 

 

 

1 See Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). 

2 TTR 231(1). See also MCL 205.732.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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 

Christopher Wright, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING NEIGHBORHOOD LAW CLINIC’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

REPRESENTATIVE 

 

ORDER UPDATING DOCKET 

 

On September 18, 2024, Tessa Henson of the Neighborhood Law Clinic filed a motion 

in the form of a joint stipulation for withdrawal requesting that the Tribunal permit them 

to withdraw as representative of Petitioner in the above-captioned case. The stipulation 

was signed by Petitioner. 

 

Respondent has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that “an attorney or 

authorized representative may withdraw from a contested case or be substituted for by 

stipulation or order of the tribunal.”1 In this case, the joint stipulation provides good 

cause to grant the Neighborhood Law Clinic’s request. Further, the Neighborhood Law 

Clinic provided proof of service demonstrating that they have advised their client and 

Respondent of their intent to withdraw as representative, and such withdrawal has not 

been opposed by either party. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Neighborhood Law Clinic’s Motion to Withdraw as 

Representative is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall be updated to reflect Petitioner’s 

contact information as: 16501 West Parkway, Detroit Michigan 48219; 

cjwdetroit@live.com. 

 

Entered: October 17, 2024 

 

 

By ____________________________ 

ssm/bm 

 

 

 

 

1 TTR 223(4).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

_____________________________________________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

MOAHR Docket No. 24-003430

CITY OF DETROIT,

Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REPRESENTATIVE

_____________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Neighborhood Law Clinic hereby withdraws as the

authorized representative of Petitioner Christopher Wright in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of September, 2024.

______________ ________________

Electronically signed by Tessa Henson

Christopher Wright, Petitioner

Tessa Henson

16501 West Parkway

Neighborhood Law Clinic

Detroit, 48219

975 Bascom Mall

cjwdetroit@live.com

Madison, WI 53706

(313) 478-3215

tmhenson@wisc.edu

(608)262-5346

I certify that on this date I served a copy of this stipulation, and any additional documentation, on

the opposing party or their representative.

September 18, 2024

Electronically signed by Tessa Henson

Date

Tessa Henson

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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 

Christopher Wright, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING NEIGHBORHOOD LAW CLINIC’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

REPRESENTATIVE 

 

ORDER UPDATING DOCKET 

 

On September 18, 2024, Tessa Henson of the Neighborhood Law Clinic filed a motion 

in the form of a joint stipulation for withdrawal requesting that the Tribunal permit them 

to withdraw as representative of Petitioner in the above-captioned case. The stipulation 

was signed by Petitioner. 

 

Respondent has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that “an attorney or 

authorized representative may withdraw from a contested case or be substituted for by 

stipulation or order of the tribunal.”1 In this case, the joint stipulation provides good 

cause to grant the Neighborhood Law Clinic’s request. Further, the Neighborhood Law 

Clinic provided proof of service demonstrating that they have advised their client and 

Respondent of their intent to withdraw as representative, and such withdrawal has not 

been opposed by either party. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the Neighborhood Law Clinic’s Motion to Withdraw as 

Representative is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the docket shall be updated to reflect Petitioner’s 

contact information as: 16501 West Parkway, Detroit Michigan 48219; 

cjwdetroit@live.com. 

 

Entered: October 17, 2024 

 

 

By ____________________________ 

ssm/bm 

 

 

 

 

1 TTR 223(4).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003430 

Page 2 of 2 

 

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

_____________________________________________________________________________

CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

MOAHR Docket No. 24-003430

CITY OF DETROIT,

Respondent.

_____________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REPRESENTATIVE

_____________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Neighborhood Law Clinic hereby withdraws as the

authorized representative of Petitioner Christopher Wright in the above-captioned case.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of September, 2024.

______________ ________________

Electronically signed by Tessa Henson

Christopher Wright, Petitioner

Tessa Henson

16501 West Parkway

Neighborhood Law Clinic

Detroit, 48219

975 Bascom Mall

cjwdetroit@live.com

Madison, WI 53706

(313) 478-3215

tmhenson@wisc.edu

(608)262-5346

I certify that on this date I served a copy of this stipulation, and any additional documentation, on

the opposing party or their representative.

September 18, 2024

Electronically signed by Tessa Henson

Date

Tessa Henson

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

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 

Christopher Wright, 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket Nos. 23-002927 

& 24-003430 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-003430 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on July 9, 2024. The 

POJ states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from date of entry of this POJ 

to notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if available, if they do 

not agree with the POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., 

exceptions).” 

 

Neither party filed exceptions to the POJ. 

 

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) considered the testimony and evidence submitted 

and made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the 2023 tax 

year. The ALJ’s determination is supported by the testimony, evidence and applicable 

statutory and case law. 

 

Neither party provided any relevant evidence of value for the 2024 tax year, however, 

and “the Tribunal may not automatically accept a respondent's assessment, but must 

make its own findings of fact and arrive at a legally supportable true cash value.”1 As 

such, the Tribunal shall sever the 2024 tax year, assign it a new docket number, and 

parties will be ordered to file pleadings specific to the 2024 tax year. 

 

Given the above, the Tribunal adopts the POJ, pertaining to the 2023 tax year, as the 

Tribunal’s final decision in this case.2 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the 

 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and 

Judgment. As a result: 

 

1 Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348, 355; 483 NW2d 416 (1992) (Citing 

Pinelake Housing Cooperative v Ann Arbor, 159 Mich App 208, 220; 406 NW2d 832 (1987)); 

Consolidated Aluminum Corp v Richmond Twp, 88 Mich App 229, 232-233; 276 NW2d 566 (1979)). 

2 See MCL 205.726.

Page 2

MTT Docket Nos. 23-002927 & 24-003430 

Page 2 of 4 

 

a. The property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and 

taxable value (TV), as established by the Board of Review for the tax year at 

issue, are as follows: 

 

Parcel Number: 22119391.002 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$27,000

$13,500

$10,981

 

b. The property’s TCV, SEV, and TV, as determined by the Tribunal for the tax 

year at issue, are as follows: 

 

Parcel Number: 22119391.002 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$17,000

$8,500

$8,500

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 2024 tax year shall be SEVERED and assigned 

Docket No. 24-003430. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file a petition pertaining to the 2024 tax 

year within 21 days of entry of this Order.3 The petition shall note the docket number 

assigned by the Tribunal for the 2024 tax year and if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing 

system, must be filed on the assigned 2024 docket number as a “Severed Petition.” 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Tribunal shall issue a Notice of Docket after receipt 

of the petition. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with maintaining the assessment 

rolls for the 2023 tax year shall correct or cause the assessment rolls to be corrected to 

reflect the property’s true cash and taxable values within 20 days of entry of this Final 

Opinion and Judgment, subject to the processes of equalization.4 To the extent that the 

final level of assessment for a given year has not yet been determined and published, 

the assessment rolls shall be corrected once the final level is published or becomes 

known. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the officer charged with collecting or refunding the 

affected taxes shall collect taxes and any applicable interest or issue a refund within 28 

days of entry of this Final Opinion and Judgment. If a refund is warranted, it shall 

include a proportionate share of any property tax administration fees paid and penalty 

and interest paid on delinquent taxes. The refund shall also separately indicate the 

 

3 Alternatively, the petition may be downloaded from the Tribunal’s website and mailed to the Tribunal via 

United States Postal Service at: Michigan Tax Tribunal, PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. The petition 

may also be delivered to the Tribunal via overnight carrier (UPS, FedEx, or DHL) at: Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, 2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933. 

4 See MCL 205.755.

Page 3

MTT Docket Nos. 23-002927 & 24-003430 

Page 3 of 4 

 

amount of the taxes, fees, penalties, and interest being refunded. A sum determined by 

the Tribunal to have been unlawfully paid shall bear interest from the date of payment to 

the date of judgment, and the judgment shall bear interest to the date of its payment. A 

sum determined by the Tribunal to have been underpaid shall not bear interest for any 

time period prior to 28 days after the issuance of this Final Opinion and Judgment. 

Pursuant to MCL 205.737, interest shall accrue (i) after December 31, 2020, through 

June 30, 2022, at the rate of 4.25%, (ii) after June 30, 2022, through December 31, 

2022, at the rate of 4.27%, (iii) after December 31, 2022, through June 30, 2023, at the 

rate of 5.65%, (iv) after June 30, 2023, through December 31, 2023, at the rate of 

8.25%, (v) after December 31, 2023, through June 30, 2024, at the rate of 9.30%, and 

(vi) after June 30, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at the rate of 9.50%. 

 

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes 

Docket No. 23-002927. 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

If you disagree with the final

Page 4

MTT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.