Craig Cotterman, Petitioner V Roscommon County Board Of Commissioners, 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 

Craig Cotterman, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

 

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners, 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On October 10, 2024, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal enter 

summary disposition in its favor and dismiss the case. In the Motion, which was filed 

pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), Respondent contends that the Tribunal lacks subject-

matter jurisdiction over the appeal. As such, Respondent is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS 

 

Respondent contends that that the special assessment at issue in this appeal is levied 

under part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). 

Respondent states that the Tribunal lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the disputed 

special assessment because (1) the appeal was not timely filed, and (2) the governing 

statutes grant sole authority over such appeals to circuit courts rather than the Tribunal. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition, thus the 

Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a decision on such 

motions.1 In this this case, Respondent moves for summary disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4). Dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate when the “court lacks 

jurisdiction of the subject matter.” When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4), the Tribunal must consider any and all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, 

admissions, and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.2 In addition, the 

 

1 See TTR 215. 

2 Id.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 2 of 4 

 

evidence offered in support of or in opposition to a party’s motion will “only be 

considered to the extent that the content or substance would be admissible as evidence 

to establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion.”3 A motion under MCR 

2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative 

remedies.4 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and finds that subject-matter jurisdiction is 

defined as “jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the 

extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. — 

Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter; jurisdiction of the cause; jurisdiction over 

the action; jurisdiction ratione materiae. Cf. personal jurisdiction.”5 MCL 205.731 

provides that “[t]he tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction” over proceedings “for 

direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency 

relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or 

equalization, under the property tax laws of this state,” as well as those “for a refund or 

redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this state.”6 The Tribunal 

also has jurisdiction over “any other proceeding provided by law.”7 

 

The subject special assessment was not levied “under the property tax laws of this 

state,” but under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Section 

30714 of the Act states that “the special assessment roll with the assessments listed 

shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court within 15 days after county 

board approval,”8 and Section 30701 defines "court" as “a circuit court, and if more than 

1 judicial circuit is involved, the circuit court designated by the county board or 

otherwise authorized by law to preside over an action.”9 Although the timeliness of the 

appeal is irrelevant for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction, and is more properly 

considered under MCR 2.116(C)(7), which provides for summary disposition when an 

appeal is barred by the statute of limitations, the plain language of the Act grants sole 

authority over such disputes to circuit courts rather than the Tribunal.10 The Tribunal 

and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as much, and 

the timeliness of the appeal is therefore irrelevant.11 “A court which has determined that 

 

3 MCR 2.116(G)(6). 

4 See Citizens for Common Sense in Gov’t v Attorney Gen, 243 Mich App 43; 620 NW2d 546 (2000). 

5 JURISDICTION, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 MCL 324.30714(4). 

9 MCL 324.30701(c). 

10 MCR 2.116(C)(7) provides for summary disposition when a claim is barred because of “release, 

payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, an agreement 

to arbitrate or to litigate in a different forum, infancy or other disability of the moving party, or assignment 

or other disposition of the claim before commencement of action.” Id. 

11 See Usl Improvement Ass’n v Oceana County Drain Comm’r, unpublished per curiam opinion of the 

Court of Appeals, issued March 13, 2012 (Docket Nos. 297157 and 298080) and Grossman v Oakland

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 3 of 4 

 

it has no jurisdiction should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”12 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves the last pending claim and closes the case. 

 

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

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.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

OCT 11 2024 

Fahey Schultz 

ATTORNEYS 

151 

105 

Burzych Rhodes 

micrican Tax TriBuNAL eros. 

FSBRLAW.COM 

381.0100 

517.381.5051 

October 9, 2024 

Via UPS 

Tribunal Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2nd Floor 

2407 N. Grand River Avenue 

Lansing, MI 48906 

Dear Clerk: 

Re: 

Craig Cotterman 

v Roscommon County Board of Commissioners 

MOAHR Docket No. 24-003609 

Please find enclosed for filing Respondent’s Motion and Brief for Summary Disposition, Proof of 

Service, and our check in the amount of $100.00 as payment. 

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

ROSS K. BOWER 

II 

MEMBER 

Direct: 517.381.3190 

rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

RKB/jas 

Enclosures 

cc 

Craig Cotterman (w/encl)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

COTTERMAN, CRAIG, 

Petitioner, 

MTT DOCKET No. 24-003609-TT 

v 

PARCEL NO. 003-670-019-0000, 003- 

670-020-0000 

ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, 

Respondent. 

/ 

Craig Cotterman 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

In pro per 

Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 

413 Old Trail Drive 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Houghton Lake, MI 48629 

Attorneys for Respondent 

(989) 366-8220 

4151 Okemos Road 

cecotterman@hotmail.com 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

sreetz@fsbrlaw.com 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION! 

NOW COMES Respondent, Roscommon County Board 

of Commissioners, thtough 

counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) in lieu of filing an 

Answer because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. As such, Respondent is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Page 3

BACKGROUND 

Pursuant to Part 307 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 

MCL 324.30701 et seq., (“Part 307 of NREPA”) and following notice, a public hearing was held 

on May 23, 2024, to review the special assessment roll and project costs for the Houghton Lake — 

Lake Level District (the “Public Hearing”). (See Notice of Public Hearing attached to Petitioner’s 

Petition). 

Following the May 23, 2024, Public Hearing, and following Roscommon County Board of 

Commissioners’ meetings on June 12, 2024 and June 17, 2024, the Roscommon County Board of 

Commissioners approved the assessment roll by resolution adopted June 

17, 2024 and dated 

September 27, 2024. (See attached Resolution No. 2024-06-01, attached as Exhibit 1). 

On or about June 26, 2024, Petitioner filed this appeal with the Tribunal. (See MTT Docket 

24-003609-TT https://taxdocketlookup.apps.lara.state.mi.us/Details.aspx?PK=155044). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

As there 

is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition, the 

Michigan Court Rules apply.? 

MCR 2.116(C)(4) examines whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction of the subject matter. 

Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction 

of the subject matter. “When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), the Tribunal 

must consider any and 

all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary 

evidence submitted by the parties. In addition, the evidence offered in support of, or in opposition,

Page 4

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the [petitioner] has failed to exhaust its 

administrative remedies.” Andersons Albion Ethanol LLC v Michigan Department of Treasury, 

MTT Case No. 20-004832 (March 10, 2021). 

ARGUMENT 

The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal because the appeal 

was not filed with a court as defined in the relevant statute. 

The special assessments at issue in this appeal are levied under Part 307 of NREPA, which 

relevantly provides: “The special assessment roll with the assessments listed shall be final and 

conclusive unless appealed 

in 

a court within 

15 days after county board approval.” MCL 

324.30714(4) (emphasis added). The Notice attached 

to Petitioner’s Petition also relevantly 

provides: “The special assessment roll shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court 

within fifteen (15) days 

after approval of the special assessment roll 

by resolution of the 

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners. Please review MCL 324.30714(4) for information 

related to lake level assessment appeals.” (See Notice of Public Hearing attached to Petitioner’s 

Petition) (emphasis added). 

The term “court” is defined in Part 307 as well: “Court means a circuit court, and if more 

than 

1 judicial circuit is involved, the circuit court designated by the county board or otherwise 

authorized by law to preside over an action.” MCL 324.30701(c). 

Petitioner filed this appeal with the Tribunal, instead of a “court” as defined in Part 307. 

MCL 324.30701(c). Since the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this matter, Respondent’s motion

Page 5

“The Tribunal has considered the motion and finds that subject-matter jurisdiction 

is defined as ‘jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; 

the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. 

— Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction 

of the cause, 

Jurisdiction 

over 

the 

action; 

jurisdiction 

ratione 

materiae. 

Cf. 

personal 

Jurisdiction.” JURISDICTION, Black’s Law Dictionary (10™ ed. 2014). MCL 

205.731 provides that ‘[t}he tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction’ over 

proceedings “for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or 

order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, 

allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state,’ as well as those 

‘for a refund or redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this 

state.” Jd. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction over ‘any other proceedings provided 

by law.” Id. The subject special assessment was not levied ‘under the property tax 

laws of this state,” but under the Natural

Page 6

assessme

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 

Craig Cotterman, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

 

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners, 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On October 10, 2024, Respondent filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal enter 

summary disposition in its favor and dismiss the case. In the Motion, which was filed 

pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), Respondent contends that the Tribunal lacks subject-

matter jurisdiction over the appeal. As such, Respondent is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion. 

 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS 

 

Respondent contends that that the special assessment at issue in this appeal is levied 

under part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). 

Respondent states that the Tribunal lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the disputed 

special assessment because (1) the appeal was not timely filed, and (2) the governing 

statutes grant sole authority over such appeals to circuit courts rather than the Tribunal. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition, thus the 

Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a decision on such 

motions.1 In this this case, Respondent moves for summary disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4). Dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate when the “court lacks 

jurisdiction of the subject matter.” When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4), the Tribunal must consider any and all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, 

admissions, and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.2 In addition, the 

 

1 See TTR 215. 

2 Id.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 2 of 4 

 

evidence offered in support of or in opposition to a party’s motion will “only be 

considered to the extent that the content or substance would be admissible as evidence 

to establish or deny the grounds stated in the motion.”3 A motion under MCR 

2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative 

remedies.4 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and finds that subject-matter jurisdiction is 

defined as “jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the 

extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. — 

Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter; jurisdiction of the cause; jurisdiction over 

the action; jurisdiction ratione materiae. Cf. personal jurisdiction.”5 MCL 205.731 

provides that “[t]he tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction” over proceedings “for 

direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency 

relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or 

equalization, under the property tax laws of this state,” as well as those “for a refund or 

redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this state.”6 The Tribunal 

also has jurisdiction over “any other proceeding provided by law.”7 

 

The subject special assessment was not levied “under the property tax laws of this 

state,” but under the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Section 

30714 of the Act states that “the special assessment roll with the assessments listed 

shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court within 15 days after county 

board approval,”8 and Section 30701 defines "court" as “a circuit court, and if more than 

1 judicial circuit is involved, the circuit court designated by the county board or 

otherwise authorized by law to preside over an action.”9 Although the timeliness of the 

appeal is irrelevant for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction, and is more properly 

considered under MCR 2.116(C)(7), which provides for summary disposition when an 

appeal is barred by the statute of limitations, the plain language of the Act grants sole 

authority over such disputes to circuit courts rather than the Tribunal.10 The Tribunal 

and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as much, and 

the timeliness of the appeal is therefore irrelevant.11 “A court which has determined that 

 

3 MCR 2.116(G)(6). 

4 See Citizens for Common Sense in Gov’t v Attorney Gen, 243 Mich App 43; 620 NW2d 546 (2000). 

5 JURISDICTION, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 MCL 324.30714(4). 

9 MCL 324.30701(c). 

10 MCR 2.116(C)(7) provides for summary disposition when a claim is barred because of “release, 

payment, prior judgment, immunity granted by law, statute of limitations, statute of frauds, an agreement 

to arbitrate or to litigate in a different forum, infancy or other disability of the moving party, or assignment 

or other disposition of the claim before commencement of action.” Id. 

11 See Usl Improvement Ass’n v Oceana County Drain Comm’r, unpublished per curiam opinion of the 

Court of Appeals, issued March 13, 2012 (Docket Nos. 297157 and 298080) and Grossman v Oakland

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003609 

Page 3 of 4 

 

it has no jurisdiction should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”12 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition is GRANTED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED. 

 

This Final Opinion and Judgment resolves the last pending claim and closes the case. 

 

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

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.

Page 1

RECEIVED 

OCT 11 2024 

Fahey Schultz 

ATTORNEYS 

151 

105 

Burzych Rhodes 

micrican Tax TriBuNAL eros. 

FSBRLAW.COM 

381.0100 

517.381.5051 

October 9, 2024 

Via UPS 

Tribunal Clerk 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2nd Floor 

2407 N. Grand River Avenue 

Lansing, MI 48906 

Dear Clerk: 

Re: 

Craig Cotterman 

v Roscommon County Board of Commissioners 

MOAHR Docket No. 24-003609 

Please find enclosed for filing Respondent’s Motion and Brief for Summary Disposition, Proof of 

Service, and our check in the amount of $100.00 as payment. 

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

ROSS K. BOWER 

II 

MEMBER 

Direct: 517.381.3190 

rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

RKB/jas 

Enclosures 

cc 

Craig Cotterman (w/encl)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

COTTERMAN, CRAIG, 

Petitioner, 

MTT DOCKET No. 24-003609-TT 

v 

PARCEL NO. 003-670-019-0000, 003- 

670-020-0000 

ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, 

Respondent. 

/ 

Craig Cotterman 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

In pro per 

Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 

413 Old Trail Drive 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Houghton Lake, MI 48629 

Attorneys for Respondent 

(989) 366-8220 

4151 Okemos Road 

cecotterman@hotmail.com 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

sreetz@fsbrlaw.com 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION! 

NOW COMES Respondent, Roscommon County Board 

of Commissioners, thtough 

counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) in lieu of filing an 

Answer because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. As such, Respondent is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Page 3

BACKGROUND 

Pursuant to Part 307 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 

MCL 324.30701 et seq., (“Part 307 of NREPA”) and following notice, a public hearing was held 

on May 23, 2024, to review the special assessment roll and project costs for the Houghton Lake — 

Lake Level District (the “Public Hearing”). (See Notice of Public Hearing attached to Petitioner’s 

Petition). 

Following the May 23, 2024, Public Hearing, and following Roscommon County Board of 

Commissioners’ meetings on June 12, 2024 and June 17, 2024, the Roscommon County Board of 

Commissioners approved the assessment roll by resolution adopted June 

17, 2024 and dated 

September 27, 2024. (See attached Resolution No. 2024-06-01, attached as Exhibit 1). 

On or about June 26, 2024, Petitioner filed this appeal with the Tribunal. (See MTT Docket 

24-003609-TT https://taxdocketlookup.apps.lara.state.mi.us/Details.aspx?PK=155044). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

As there 

is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition, the 

Michigan Court Rules apply.? 

MCR 2.116(C)(4) examines whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction of the subject matter. 

Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction 

of the subject matter. “When presented with a motion pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4), the Tribunal 

must consider any and 

all affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary 

evidence submitted by the parties. In addition, the evidence offered in support of, or in opposition,

Page 4

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where the [petitioner] has failed to exhaust its 

administrative remedies.” Andersons Albion Ethanol LLC v Michigan Department of Treasury, 

MTT Case No. 20-004832 (March 10, 2021). 

ARGUMENT 

The Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal because the appeal 

was not filed with a court as defined in the relevant statute. 

The special assessments at issue in this appeal are levied under Part 307 of NREPA, which 

relevantly provides: “The special assessment roll with the assessments listed shall be final and 

conclusive unless appealed 

in 

a court within 

15 days after county board approval.” MCL 

324.30714(4) (emphasis added). The Notice attached 

to Petitioner’s Petition also relevantly 

provides: “The special assessment roll shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court 

within fifteen (15) days 

after approval of the special assessment roll 

by resolution of the 

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners. Please review MCL 324.30714(4) for information 

related to lake level assessment appeals.” (See Notice of Public Hearing attached to Petitioner’s 

Petition) (emphasis added). 

The term “court” is defined in Part 307 as well: “Court means a circuit court, and if more 

than 

1 judicial circuit is involved, the circuit court designated by the county board or otherwise 

authorized by law to preside over an action.” MCL 324.30701(c). 

Petitioner filed this appeal with the Tribunal, instead of a “court” as defined in Part 307. 

MCL 324.30701(c). Since the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over this matter, Respondent’s motion

Page 5

“The Tribunal has considered the motion and finds that subject-matter jurisdiction 

is defined as ‘jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; 

the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things. 

— Also termed jurisdiction of the subject matter, jurisdiction 

of the cause, 

Jurisdiction 

over 

the 

action; 

jurisdiction 

ratione 

materiae. 

Cf. 

personal 

Jurisdiction.” JURISDICTION, Black’s Law Dictionary (10™ ed. 2014). MCL 

205.731 provides that ‘[t}he tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction’ over 

proceedings “for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or 

order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, 

allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state,’ as well as those 

‘for a refund or redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this 

state.” Jd. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction over ‘any other proceedings provided 

by law.” Id. The subject special assessment was not levied ‘under the property tax 

laws of this state,” but under the Natural

Page 6

assessme

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

Craig Cotterman,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003609

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 279. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: October 11, 2024

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

Page 2

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

Craig Cotterman,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003609

Roscommon County Board of Commissioners,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims petition has been filed and the above-noted docket 

number has been assigned to that petition. The assignment of the docket number does 

not mean that the Tribunal has authority over the petition or that the petition complies 

with the Tribunal’s rules. The docket number needs to be included on all documents 

submitted in this case.

Respondent shall file an answer to the petition within 28 days of the issuance of a 

copy of this Notice to Respondent. Tribunal answer forms are available on our 

website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. Respondents must utilize the appropriate answer 

form. Failure to file the answer within the 28-day time frame may result in the 

placement of Respondent in default, as provided by TTR 279. Further, an electronic 

copy of the petition can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup Search on the 

Tribunal’s website.

By: __Tribunal Clerk_____

Entered: October 11, 2024

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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

COTTERMAN, CRAIG, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 24-003609-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 003-670-019-0000, 003-

670-020-0000 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Craig Cotterman 

In pro per 

413 Old Trail Drive 

Houghton Lake, MI 48629 

(989) 366-8220 

cecotterman@hotmail.com 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

sreetz@fsbrlaw.com 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

FAHEY SCHULTZ BURZYCH RHODES PLC, hereby enters its Appearance on behalf 

of Respondent, ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, in the above-

entitled matter. 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: October 9, 2024 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

By: __________________________________ 

 Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

 Samantha R. Reetz (P86523)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

COTTERMAN, CRAIG, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF 

COMMISSIONERS, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 24-003609-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 003-670-019-0000, 003-

670-020-0000 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Craig Cotterman 

In pro per 

413 Old Trail Drive 

Houghton Lake, MI 48629 

(989) 366-8220 

cecotterman@hotmail.com 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Samantha R. Reetz (P86523) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

sreetz@fsbrlaw.com 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jamy A. Staffeld states that on October 9, 2024 she served a copy of Appearance, and this 

Proof of Service, upon the following via first class mail: 

 

 

Craig Cotterman 

413 Old Trail Drive 

Houghton Lake, MI 48629 

 

I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and 

 

belief. 

/s/ Jamy A Staffeld 

 

Jamy A. Staffeld

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

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

RECEIVED 

JUL 08 2024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact information 

989-366-8220 

First Name 

M.IL 

Last Name/Company Name 

Craig 

Cotterman 

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

413 Old Trail Dr. 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Houghton Lake 

MI 

148629 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

cecotterman@hotmail.com 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

1 

First Name 

M1 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

Ii 

104 

1 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

parcels are you 

appealing? 

Ono 

[wa 

Yes* 

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

*If yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

**If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON i. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

The intent of Roscommon County is to use this Special Assesment to increase the 

Houghton Lake legal lake level. The consequences will decrease my property values, 

destoying the lake shore, and property, inflicting pain and suffering to my family. 

Please see Attached 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the spacial assessment roll? 

Yes 

|] No 

if Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment rofl? 

6-17-2024 

H No, explain: 

Fee Information: 

A fee of $100.00 is required for the filing of a Spacial Assessment Appeal. 

Signature required 

Potiti 

Attorney/Authori 

pregsntative’s Signature: 

ist 

Bo) 

2

Page 3

ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

| 

HOUGHTON LAKE ~ LAKE LEVEL 

i 

RESOLUTION NO. 

WHEREAS, the Roscommon County Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) and its 

Delegated Authority have jurisdiction to maintain the normal lake levels of Houghton Lake under 

Part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994, as amended 

(“Part 307”); and 

" WHEREAS, a special assessment district was established by the Roscommon County 

Circuit Court for Houghton Lake, located in Denton, Lake, Markey, and Roscommon Townships, 

Roscommon County, Michigan under Part 307; and 

WHEREAS; the Delegated Authority held a public hearing on May 23, 2024 to review the. 

computation of costs of a lake level project and a corresponding special assessment roll consistent 

with the requirements of Part 307; and 

WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Delegated Authority made revisions to the 

special assessment roll. MCL 324.30714(3); and 

WHEREAS, 

the 

Delegated 

Authority 

presented 

the 

special 

assessment 

roll “and 

computation of costs to the Board at its meeting on June 12, 2024; 

WHEREAS, following the June 

12, 2024 meeting, the Delegated Authority made 

additional revisions to the special assessment roll. See MCL 324.30714(3); and 

WHEREAS, the Delegated Authority approved the revised special assessment roll and 

computation of costs and presented said special assessment roll and computation of costs to.the 

Board for final approval at its special meeting on June 17, 2024; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the computation of costs and special assessment roll 

presented by the Delegated Authority; and 

WHEREAS, MCL 324.30722(4) requires annual expenditures of over $10,000 to be 

approved by a county board of commissioners; and 

WHEREAS, the Board previously approved annual expenditures of over $10,000 for 

activities to maintain the normal levels of Houghton Lake and now finds it necessary to re-affirm 

said approval.

Page 4

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 

I. 

Computation of Costs & Special Assessment Roll. The Board approves the computation 

of costs of the lake level project and the special assessment roll as presented by the 

‘Delegated Authority and attached to this Resolution. The special assessment roll with the 

‘assessments listed shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court within 15 days 

of the adoption of this Resolution. MCL 324.30714(4). The Roscommon County Clerk 

shall forward to the Delegated Authority a copy of this Resolution so that action can be 

instituted by Roscommon County in an expedient manner. 

Over $10,000 Expenditure. The Board approves annual expenditures of over $10,000 for 

activities to maintain the normal levels of Houghton Lake, including the maintenance and 

repair of lake level infrastructure. This express authorization to spend more than $10,000 

annually shall authorize annual expenditures of over $10,000 for all years in which work 

for the activities authorized herein continues to occur. The expenditures authorized herein 

shall not exceed the amount of the computation of costs of the lake level project without 

prior approval of the Board. 

Previous Resolutions. All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as the same may be 

in conflict herewith are hereby rescinded. 

* RESOLUTION approved this 

day of 

» 2024, by the Roscommon 

County Board of Commissioners. 

Ths 

Re sorotrons. as aT 

| art 7%. e122. 

SQccie- 

{ 

Thereby certify that the above resolution was adopted 

© 

at a meeting of the Roscommon County Board of 

Board reds “7 

--- 

Commissioners on the 

day of 

, 

Ass. Ceol, ye ast dh 

at the. begun Evel 

2024.

Page 5

| fake

Page 6

Ob

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

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING 

RECEIVED 

JUL 08 2024 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact information 

989-366-8220 

First Name 

M.IL 

Last Name/Company Name 

Craig 

Cotterman 

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

413 Old Trail Dr. 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Houghton Lake 

MI 

148629 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

cecotterman@hotmail.com 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

1 

First Name 

M1 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

Ii 

104 

1 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

parcels are you 

appealing? 

Ono 

[wa 

Yes* 

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

*If yes, use a multiple parcel form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

**If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) [If multiple, list first property’s address]

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON i. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

The intent of Roscommon County is to use this Special Assesment to increase the 

Houghton Lake legal lake level. The consequences will decrease my property values, 

destoying the lake shore, and property, inflicting pain and suffering to my family. 

Please see Attached 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the spacial assessment roll? 

Yes 

|] No 

if Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment rofl? 

6-17-2024 

H No, explain: 

Fee Information: 

A fee of $100.00 is required for the filing of a Spacial Assessment Appeal. 

Signature required 

Potiti 

Attorney/Authori 

pregsntative’s Signature: 

ist 

Bo) 

2

Page 3

ROSCOMMON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

| 

HOUGHTON LAKE ~ LAKE LEVEL 

i 

RESOLUTION NO. 

WHEREAS, the Roscommon County Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) and its 

Delegated Authority have jurisdiction to maintain the normal lake levels of Houghton Lake under 

Part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994, as amended 

(“Part 307”); and 

" WHEREAS, a special assessment district was established by the Roscommon County 

Circuit Court for Houghton Lake, located in Denton, Lake, Markey, and Roscommon Townships, 

Roscommon County, Michigan under Part 307; and 

WHEREAS; the Delegated Authority held a public hearing on May 23, 2024 to review the. 

computation of costs of a lake level project and a corresponding special assessment roll consistent 

with the requirements of Part 307; and 

WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Delegated Authority made revisions to the 

special assessment roll. MCL 324.30714(3); and 

WHEREAS, 

the 

Delegated 

Authority 

presented 

the 

special 

assessment 

roll “and 

computation of costs to the Board at its meeting on June 12, 2024; 

WHEREAS, following the June 

12, 2024 meeting, the Delegated Authority made 

additional revisions to the special assessment roll. See MCL 324.30714(3); and 

WHEREAS, the Delegated Authority approved the revised special assessment roll and 

computation of costs and presented said special assessment roll and computation of costs to.the 

Board for final approval at its special meeting on June 17, 2024; and 

WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the computation of costs and special assessment roll 

presented by the Delegated Authority; and 

WHEREAS, MCL 324.30722(4) requires annual expenditures of over $10,000 to be 

approved by a county board of commissioners; and 

WHEREAS, the Board previously approved annual expenditures of over $10,000 for 

activities to maintain the normal levels of Houghton Lake and now finds it necessary to re-affirm 

said approval.

Page 4

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 

I. 

Computation of Costs & Special Assessment Roll. The Board approves the computation 

of costs of the lake level project and the special assessment roll as presented by the 

‘Delegated Authority and attached to this Resolution. The special assessment roll with the 

‘assessments listed shall be final and conclusive unless appealed in a court within 15 days 

of the adoption of this Resolution. MCL 324.30714(4). The Roscommon County Clerk 

shall forward to the Delegated Authority a copy of this Resolution so that action can be 

instituted by Roscommon County in an expedient manner. 

Over $10,000 Expenditure. The Board approves annual expenditures of over $10,000 for 

activities to maintain the normal levels of Houghton Lake, including the maintenance and 

repair of lake level infrastructure. This express authorization to spend more than $10,000 

annually shall authorize annual expenditures of over $10,000 for all years in which work 

for the activities authorized herein continues to occur. The expenditures authorized herein 

shall not exceed the amount of the computation of costs of the lake level project without 

prior approval of the Board. 

Previous Resolutions. All resolutions and parts of resolutions insofar as the same may be 

in conflict herewith are hereby rescinded. 

* RESOLUTION approved this 

day of 

» 2024, by the Roscommon 

County Board of Commissioners. 

Ths 

Re sorotrons. as aT 

| art 7%. e122. 

SQccie- 

{ 

Thereby certify that the above resolution was adopted 

© 

at a meeting of the Roscommon County Board of 

Board reds “7 

--- 

Commissioners on the 

day of 

, 

Ass. Ceol, ye ast dh 

at the. begun Evel 

2024.

Page 5

| fake

Page 6

Ob

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.