Eschaton LLC, Petitioner Vs. 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 

NOTICE OF APRIL 1-15, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE FOR NON-PROPERTY TAX AND 

PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION CASES 

 

Eschaton LLC, 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

City of Detroit, 

Respondent. 

 

 

Please be advised that the above captioned case has been placed on a two-week 

Prehearing General Call commencing April 1, 2027. Parties will be notified at least 28 

days before they are scheduled to appear. 

 

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are 

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket 

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and 

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for 

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents 

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a 

Protective Order will be published. 

 

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or 

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to 

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not 

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing 

for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A party, representative, or interested 

person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may request that the Tribunal redact PII 

contained in a previously filed document by submitting a Request for Redactions. The 

Request for Redactions form is available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages 

of the Tribunal’s website. 

 

IT IS ORDERED that discovery is CLOSED on February 1, 2027, which means all 

discovery has been requested, all motions to compel have been filed, and all requested 

or ordered discovery has been

Page 2

M

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 

 

Eschaton LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER REMOVING CASE FROM MAY 17-28, 2027 PREHEARING 

GENERAL CALL 

 

On June 16, 2026, the Tribunal issued a notice placing this case on the 

May 17-28, 2027 Prehearing General Call and Order of Procedure. On July 7, 2026, 

Petitioner filed notice indicating that this case does not involve valuation issues and that 

no valuation disclosures would be filed. Given this, this case will be removed from the 

May 17-28, 2027 Prehearing General Call and Order of Procedure. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMOVED from the May 17-28, 2027 Prehearing 

General Call. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be placed on a Non-Property and 

Exemption Prehearing General Call in the normal course of scheduling. 

 

Entered: July 16, 2026 

 

 

 

By: /s/ Patricia L. Halm 

 

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 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ESCHATON LLC, 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

Respondent. 

 

PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF NO VALUATION DISCLOSURE 

Petitioner, Eschaton LLC, by and through its attorney, Darwyn P. Fair, and pursuant to the 

Tribunal's Notice of May 17-28, 2027 Prehearing General Call and Order of Procedure entered 

June 16, 2026, hereby gives notice that no valuation disclosure will be filed in this matter, and 

states as follows: 

1. 

The Order requires that, if no valuation disclosure is required, the parties shall notify the 

Tribunal and opposing parties in writing within 21 days of entry of the Order, stating the reason 

no valuation disclosure is being filed. 

2. 

This appeal, as set forth in Petitioner's Amended Entire Tribunal Petition filed February 

27, 2026, is limited to Count I (Improper Denial of Nonprofit Exemption under MCL 211.7o), 

Count II (Improper Use of "Clerical Error/Mutual Mistake" Authority under MCL 211.53b), and 

Count III (Lack of Statutory Qualified Error under MCL 211.53b(6)). 

3. 

Petitioner does not assert, and has expressly disclaimed, a general valuation appeal for tax 

year 2025 beyond the corrections made by the December 2025 Board of Review. 

4. 

Because this matter presents questions of exemption status and the Board of Review's 

statutory authority to enter the challenged correction, rather than a dispute over the true cash value, 

state equalized value, or taxable value of the subject property, no valuation disclosure within the 

meaning of TTR 203 and TTR 241 is required.

Page 2

5. 

Petitioner reserves the right to seek leave of the Tribunal to file a valuation disclosure 

should the nature of this proceeding later require one. 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully gives notice that no valuation disclosure is required or will 

be filed in this matter for the reasons stated above. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DARWYN P. FAIR LAW PLLC 

 

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair 

DARWYN P. FAIR (P31266) 

Attorney for Petitioner 

535 Griswold, Ste. 111-554 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 967-0595 

Dated: July 7, 2026 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 6th day of July, 2026, I served the

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

NOTICE OF MAY 17- 28, 2027 PREHEARING GENERAL CALL AND ORDER OF 

PROCEDURE

Eschaton LLC,

Petitioner,

v

 

 

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

 MTT Docket No. 26-000046

Please be advised that 26-000046 has been placed on a two-week Prehearing General 

Call commencing May 17, 2027. Unless ordered otherwise, parties will be notified at 

least 28 days before they are scheduled to appear. Scheduling will not necessarily 

occur in the order in which the cases are listed below.

Parties are required to submit a valuation disclosure or written notification that no 

valuation disclosure is required by the dates indicated herein. A “valuation disclosure” 

is defined as documentary or other tangible evidence in a property tax proceeding that a 

party relies upon in support of the party’s contention as to the true cash value of the 

subject property or any portion thereof and contains the party’s value conclusion and 

data, valuation methodology, analysis or reasoning. See TTR 203 and TTR 241.

Users who file documents with the Tribunal are advised that filed documents are 

public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tribunal’s Tax Docket 

Lookup. If a user wishes to file a document for consideration by the Tribunal and 

prevent its publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for 

Protective Order under MCR 2.302(C)(8). If a Protective Order is issued, documents 

covered by the order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a 

Protective Order will be published.

In accordance with MCR 1.109(D)(9) and TTR 209, the responsibility for excluding or 

redacting personal identifying information (PII) from all documents filed with or offered to 

the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and their attorneys. The Tribunal is not 

responsible for or required to review, redact, or screen documents at the time of filing 

for PII whether filed electronically or on

Page 2

MTT

Page 3

M

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

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

ESCHATON, LLC , 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

 

Docket No. 26-000046 -TT 

 

Respondent 

 

 

 

 

Parcel No. 03003238 

____________________________________________________________________________/ 

ANSWER TO AMENDED PETITION and 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

Now Comes Respondent, City of Detroit, by and through it undersigned counsel and in Answer 

to the Petition filed in this matter states the following: 

1. JURISDICTIONAL BASIS 

 

1. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits as true. 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

4. Respondent admits as true. 

2. Nature of Appeal ( LIMITED) 

1. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

3. Subject Property Information . 

 

1. Respondent admits that the subject property information is listed correctly.

Page 2

2 

 

 

2. Respondent admits as true. 

 

3. Respondent admits as true. 

 

4. Respondent admits as true. 

 

5. Respondent admits as true these valuations. 

4. Issues Presented 

COUNT I- Improper Denial of Non-Profit Exemption 

1. Respondent, City of Detroit, admits the allegations in the corresponding paragraph as 

true. 

2. Respondent denies as untrue. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

Respondent objects to Petitioner’s request for reinstatement of exempt status for tax year 2025. 

 COUNT II- Improper Use of “Clerical Error /Mutual Mistake “Authority 

1. Respondent denies as untrue. 

2. Respondent denies as untrue. 

3. Respondent denies as untrue. 

4. Respondent denies as untrue. 

Respondent requests denial of Petitioner’s reversal of the BOR “correction.” 

 COUNT III - Lack of Statutory Qualified Error 

1. Respondent admits that this is a statutory requirement but denies that the BOR acted 

in violation of the statute.

Page 3

3 

 

2. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

3. Respondent neither admits nor denies and leaves Petitioner to its proofs. 

 5. Relief Requested 

 Respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss this Appeals and award

Page 4

4

Page 5

5

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

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Respondent

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 26-000046

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Local Unit of Government

City of Detroit (Wayne)

Local Unit of Government/First Name

M.I.

Last Name

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

City or Town

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

Telephone Number

Fax Number

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

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Mary Beth

M.I.

Last Name

Cobbs

Firm Name (if any)

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

2 Woodward Avenue

Suite 500

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

313-237-3075

Fax Number

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

cobbm@detroitmi.gov

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Respondent or Authorized Attorney/Representative’s Signature: 

Mary Beth Cobbs 

/s/

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 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

1. A default was entered against me on _________________ and, if applicable, the default 

was extended on _________________. 

2. Good cause exists to set aside the default because: 

3. I ask this Tribunal to set aside the default. 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

Party/Representative (sign here) 

_________________________________________ 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

 

 

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

opposing party or their representative. 

 

 

 

___________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

(sign here) 

ESCHATON LLC

26-000046

CITY OF DETROIT

FEBRUARY 13, 2026

MARCH 20, 2026

SEE ATTACHMENT.

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair

Darwyn P. Fair

3-24-26

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair

Page 2

ATTACHMENT #2 

Good cause exists to set aside the Default because Petitioner timely responded to the Tribunal’s 

February 13, 2026, Order by filing an Amended Entire Tribunal Petition, a copy of the Wayne 

County Circuit Court Complaint (Case No. 25-015101-CB), and a written status statement. 

The Tribunal subsequently found that Petitioner’s response was incomplete due to failure to file 

proof of service on all parties-in-interest. This defect was procedural in nature and has now been 

fully corrected. 

Petitioner has served the Amended Petition on all required parties-in-interest and has filed a 

corrected Proof of Service in compliance with Tribunal Rules (TTR 227 and TTR 225). 

No prejudice will result to Respondent or any party-in-interest, and the Tribunal has already 

determined that jurisdiction is properly invoked with respect to the December 2025 Board of 

Review decision.

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 

Eschaton LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

 

On March 24, 2026, Petitioner filed proof evidencing the service of the petition on the 

six parties in interest. On March 25, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting the 

Tribunal set aside the default entered in this case on February 13, 2026.1 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner was 

held in default because Petitioner filed a defective petition. Petitioner responded but 

failed to cure the default and the Tribunal entered an order extending the time to cure 

on March 20, 2026, and further required Petitioner file proof of service of the amended 

petition. Having now filed an amended petition and proof evidencing the service of the 

amended petition on the six parties in interest, Petitioner has complied with the 

Tribunal’s orders as required by TTR 237. As such, the Tribunal finds good cause to 

grant the motion and set aside the default. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Default is GRANTED. 

 

 

Entered: March 30, 2026 

 

 

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 

 

1 Because Respondent has yet to appear on the instant appeal, it was not required Petitioner serve a 

copy of the motion on Respondent, thus Respondent has not filed a response.

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 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT 

1. A default was entered against me on _________________ and, if applicable, the default 

was extended on _________________. 

2. Good cause exists to set aside the default because: 

3. I ask this Tribunal to set aside the default. 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________ 

Party/Representative (sign here) 

_________________________________________ 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

 

 

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

opposing party or their representative. 

 

 

 

___________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

 

Date 

 

 

 

 

 

(sign here) 

ESCHATON LLC

26-000046

CITY OF DETROIT

FEBRUARY 13, 2026

MARCH 20, 2026

SEE ATTACHMENT.

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair

Darwyn P. Fair

3-24-26

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair

Page 2

ATTACHMENT #2 

Good cause exists to set aside the Default because Petitioner timely responded to the Tribunal’s 

February 13, 2026, Order by filing an Amended Entire Tribunal Petition, a copy of the Wayne 

County Circuit Court Complaint (Case No. 25-015101-CB), and a written status statement. 

The Tribunal subsequently found that Petitioner’s response was incomplete due to failure to file 

proof of service on all parties-in-interest. This defect was procedural in nature and has now been 

fully corrected. 

Petitioner has served the Amended Petition on all required parties-in-interest and has filed a 

corrected Proof of Service in compliance with Tribunal Rules (TTR 227 and TTR 225). 

No prejudice will result to Respondent or any party-in-interest, and the Tribunal has already 

determined that jurisdiction is properly invoked with respect to the December 2025 Board of 

Review decision.

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

Eschaton LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that the Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and 

finds that:

The Tribunal has received Petitioner's March 24, 2026 filing. That filing requires a 

motion with the appropriate motion fee. As such, the filing is not properly pending, and 

no action will be taken unless a motion and appropriate filing fee are filed within 14 days 

of the issuance of this notice. 

Filing fees for Entire Tribunal motions are governed by TTR 223 and filing fees for Small 

Claims motions are governed by TTR 269. The rules and a summary of the fees can be 

found on the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Entered: March 25, 2026

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 26-000046

Page 2 of 2

Eschaton LLC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF NO ACTION

TAKE NOTICE that the Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and 

finds that:

The Tribunal has received Petitioner's March 24, 2026 filing. That filing requires a 

motion with the appropriate motion fee. As such, the filing is not properly pending, and 

no action will be taken unless a motion and appropriate filing fee are filed within 14 days 

of the issuance of this notice. 

Filing fees for Entire Tribunal motions are governed by TTR 223 and filing fees for Small 

Claims motions are governed by TTR 269. The rules and a summary of the fees can be 

found on the Tribunal’s

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

DIRECTOR 

ESCHATON LLC 

, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No.26-000046 

CITY OF DETROIT 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE FOR PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

*To be filed after the Tribunal issues the Notice of Docket Number* 

Darwyn P. Fair 

states that on March 24, 2026 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Petition relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the following entities] 

1. 

Assessor (via certified mail): 

City of Detroit Assessor's Office - Coleman A. Young Municipal Center- 2 Woodward 

Avenue, Suite 1300 - Detroit, MI 48226 

2. 

City Clerk or Township Supervisor/Clerk (via certified mail): 

City of Detroit Clerk's Office - Coleman A. Young Municipal Center - 2 Woodward 

Avenue, Suite 200 - Detroit, MI 48226 

3. 

County Equalization Director (via first class mail or personal service): 

Wayne County Equalization Department - Attn: Equalization Director - 400 Monroe 

Street 5th Floor, Detroit, MI 48226 

4. 

County Clerk (via first class mail or personal service): 

Wayne County Clerk - 

2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 201 

- Detroit, 

MI 48226 

5. 

Secretary of the local school board (via first class mail or personal service): 

Detroit Public Schools Community District - Fisher Building - 3011 West Grand Blvd, 

12th Floor, Detroit, MI 48202 

6. 

State Treasurer (via first class mail): 

Michigan Department of Treasury, State Treasurer 

430 W. Allegan 

Lansing, MI 48922 

/s/ Darwyn P. Fair 

Darwyn P. Fair 

[Signature of person who is serving/mailing copy] 

[Print/type name of person serving/mailing copy] 

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

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 

Eschaton LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

On February 27, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended petition, a copy of the complaint filed 

in Wayne County Circuit Court Case No 25-015101-CB, and a written statement as to 

the status of the circuit court case in response to the Tribunal’s February 13, 2026 

Order of Default. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the response and the case file and finds that Petitioner 

was held in default because Petitioner filed a defective petition.1 Although Petitioner 

timely responded to the Order of Default, their attempt to cure is incomplete because 

Petitioner failed to file proof evidencing the service of the amended petition on all six 

parties in interest in accordance with Tribunal rules.2 Though the Tribunal finds an 

extension of time to cure the default appropriate, 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 dismissal of the case for failure to timely comply with 

this order.3 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that the time for Petitioner to cure the default is EXTENDED. 

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner must complete the following to cure the 

default: (1) file proof evidencing service of the petition on all six parties in interest, (2) 

file a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3) pay the $50.00 fee required for the filing of the 

motion. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this 

order.4 

 

1 The order further stated, “Failure to comply with this order will result in the defaulted party being 

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).” 

2 TTR 225(6). 

3 See Grimm v Dep’t of

Page 2

MT

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

STATUS REPORT 

 

The issues in that case concern: Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 25-015101-CB concerns 

claims arising from the City of Detroit’s assessment and taxation of the subject property, 

including the denial of a nonprofit property tax exemption and related administrative actions, and 

the Wayne County Treasurer's foreclosure on the subject property. The Circuit Court action seeks 

relief independent of, and in addition to, the statutory review of the December 2025 Board of 

Review Affidavit(s) of Correction presently before the Michigan Tax Tribunal.

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 

IN THE WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

Plymouth United Church of Christ, 

a Michigan Ecclesiastical Corporation, 

Eschaton LLC, a Michigan Limited 

Liability Corporation, and M-R Non Profit 

Housing Corporation, a Michigan Non Profit 

Corporation, 

Plaintiffs, 

Case No. 25-015101-CB 

Vv. 

Hon. David J. Allen 

Wayne County Treasurer and City of Detroit, 

Defendants. 

Darwyn P. Fair (P31266) 

Darwyn P. Fair Law, PLLC 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

535 Griswold, Ste. 111-554 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 967-0595 

dpfair@dpfairlaw.com 

EMERGENCY 

EX-PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

At a session of said Court, held in the City of 

Detroit, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, 

On: 

9/30/2025 

Present: Hon. 

David J. Allen 

Upon the reading of the Complaint and Emergency Exparte Motion 

for Temporary 

Restraining Order and the Court being satisfied that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or 

damage will result to the Plaintiffs if the Temporary Restraining Order is not entered because 

Plaintiffs will from the delay required to effect notice or that the risk of notice will precipitate 

adverse action before an Order can be issued and the Plaintiffs will lose ownership of the subject 

properties and there 

is no adequate remedy at law, and the Court being duly advised in the 

premises:

Page 2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants, 

and those 

acting in concert with them, and all persons receiving notice of this Order be and are hereby 

enjoined from auctioning, attempting to auction, or otherwise promoting the process of auctioning 

the properties located 

at 4801 Chrysler, Detroit, Michigan 48201, 4901 Chrysler, Detroit, 

Michigan 48201, 4535 Chrysler, Detroit, Michigan 48201, 4801 Chrysler, Detroit, Michigan 

48201 that is scheduled for Friday, October 3, 2025. 

Abond or other form of security is not required because Defendants will not suffer damages 

as a result of the maintenance of the status quo until a hearing on the merits. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants, and those acting in concert with them, 

and all persons receiving notice of this Order, be and hereby enjoined from altering, concealing, 

or destroying any of the books

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

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

 

IN THE WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 

 

Plymouth United Church of Christ, 

a Michigan Ecclesiastical Corporation, 

Eschaton LLC, a Michigan Limited 

Liability Corporation, and M-R Non Profit 

Housing Corporation, a Michigan Non Profit 

Corporation, 

 

 

 

Plaintiffs, 

 

 

 

Case No. 25-015101-CB 

 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hon. David J. Allen 

 

 

Wayne County Treasurer and City of Detroit, 

 

 

 

Defendants. 

 

Darwyn P. Fair (P31266) 

Darwyn P. Fair Law, PLLC 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

535 Griswold, Ste. 111-554 

Detroit, MI 48226 

(313) 967-0595 

dpfair@dpfairlaw.com 

 

 

 

There is no pending civil action arising out of a similar transaction or occurrence alleged in the 

Complaint. However, there were pending civil actions arising out of similar transactions or 

occurrences alleged in the Complaint in Case No. 21-007151-CH before the Honorable Timothy 

Kenny and Case No. 22-006263-CH before the Honorable Patricia Fresard 

 

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

 

NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, Plymouth United Church of Christ, Eschaton LLC, and M-R 

Non Profit Housing Corporation by their attorney, Darwyn P. Fair and states their Complaint 

against the Defendant, Wayne County Treasurer and Defendant City of Detroit as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

 

Document received by the MI Wayne 3rd Circuit Court.

Page 2

2 

 

1. 

This Court has jurisdiction of this case, which seeks equitable relief pursuant to 

MCL 600.601, MCL 600.605, MCR 2.605 (A) and (B) and Joy Mgt. Co. v. Detroit,176 Mich.App. 

722, 728, 440 N.W.2d 654 (1989) 

2. 

Venue is proper in Wayne County pursuant to MCL 600.1621 because the properties 

at issue are located in Wayne County 

PARTIES 

 

3. 

Plaintiff, Plymouth United Church of Christ (“Plaintiff” or “Plymouth”) is 

located in the City of Detroit, Wayne County, State of Michigan and is the owner of real property 

located in the City of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, commonly known as 4801 Chrysler, 

Detroit, Michigan and 4901 Chrysler, Detroit, Michigan. (See Exhibit 1) 

4. 

Plaintiff, Eschaton LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Eschaton”) is located in the City of 

Detroit, Wayne County, State of Michigan and is the owner of real property located in the City of 

Detroit, Wayne County,

Page 3

3

Page 4

4

Page 5

5

Page 6

6

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

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

ESCHATON LLC, 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AMENDED ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PETITION 

(December 2025 Board of Review Decision) 

1. Jurisdictional Basis 

1. This Appeal is taken pursuant to MCL 205.735a(6). 

2. Petitioner appeals the December 2025 Board of Review Affidavit of Correction, issued 

December 9, 2025. 

3. The Appeal was timely filed within 35 days of the December 2025 BOR decision. 

4. This Amended Petition is filed pursuant to the Tribunal’s Order Holding Petitioner in 

Default and requiring correction of the jurisdictional basis. 

2. Nature of Appeal (LIMITED) 

Petitioner appeals only the matters addressed by the December 2025 Board of Review, 

specifically: 

14 - Clerical Error/Mutual Mistake of Fact 

15 - Property Exemption Granted 

Petitioner does not assert a general valuation appeal for 2025 beyond the BOR’s corrections. 

3. Subject Property Information 

The property address is 4535 Chrysler, Detroit, MI 48201 

 

The property is a commercial property. 

All of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal. 

Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 375 Lodge, Detroit, MI 48214. 

 

26-000046 

Parcel No: 03003238

Page 2

2 

 

2025 AV: $0 → $288,900 

2025 TV: $0 → $280,980 

4. Issues Presented 

COUNT I – Improper Denial of Nonprofit Exemption 

1. The December 2025 BOR denied Petitioner’s exemption. 

2. The subject property qualifies for exemption under: 

o MCL 211.7o (charitable exemption), and/or 

3. The BOR’s denial constitutes error because: 

o The property is occupied by a qualifying nonprofit entity. 

o The property is used solely for exempt purposes. 

o No statutory disqualification applies. 

Petitioner requests reinstatement of exempt status for tax year 2025. 

COUNT II – Improper Use of “Clerical Error/Mutual Mistake” Authority 

1. The BOR characterized the correction as a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact under 

MCL 211.53b. 

2. The change from $0 to substantial

Page 3

3 

 

1.

Page 4

4

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 

 

_____________________________, 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 

 

 

 

 

_____________________________, 

Respondent(s) 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. 

Property Parcel No: _____________________________________________ 

(If more than one parcel is at issue, attach a completed Multiple Parcel Petition 

Form addressing all other parcels at issue.) 

 

2. 

The property identified above is ___real ___personal. 

 

3. 

If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties 

contiguous? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each non-

contiguous parcel.) 

 

4. 

Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property 

under appeal? ___Yes ___No. (If no, separate Petitions are required for each 

parcel of personal property not located on a parcel of real property under 

appeal.) 

 

5. 

If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal 

property statements filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

6. 

The property identified above is classified as _________________________ 

 

7. 

If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made 

to Respondent’s ___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

 

 

 

Eschaton, LLC

26-000046

City of Detroit

03003238

X

X

X

N/A

201 - COMMERCIAL

Page 2

MTT Docket No. _________________ 

Page 2 of 4 

 

8. 

If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific 

facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the 

assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

 

 

 

 

9. 

If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the 

classification or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 

of the tax year involved), list the

Page 3

MTT

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

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 

Eschaton LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

ORDER REINSTATING CASE 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

On February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 14, 2026. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that it did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment until December 9, 

2025, when the December 2025 Board of Review (BOR) issued an Affidavit of 

Correction.1 Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 30 days of this decision on 

January 8, 2026. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

demonstrated a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal 

and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was 

corrected.2 Specifically, Petitioner failed to indicate in the petition that it was appealing 

a December 2025 BOR decision. The BOR decision filed with Petitioner’s Motion for 

Reconsideration indicates that the property’s 2025 assessed value (AV) was increased 

from $0 to $288,900, and that the taxable value (TV) was increased from $0 to 

$280,980. The stated reasons for the correction are clerical error/mutual mistake of fact 

and nonprofit exemption denial. 

 

Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 35 days of the December 2025 BOR decision, 

as required by MCL 205.735a(6),3 and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was properly invoked 

with respect to that decision. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the property’s true cash 

value (TCV) is limited to any errors addressed by the BOR, however, as assessment 

disputes for commercial properties must be filed with the Tribunal on or before May 31

Page 2

M

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 

Eschaton LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

ORDER REINSTATING CASE 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

On February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 14, 2026. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that it did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment until December 9, 

2025, when the December 2025 Board of Review (BOR) issued an Affidavit of 

Correction.1 Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 30 days of this decision on 

January 8, 2026. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

demonstrated a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal 

and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was 

corrected.2 Specifically, Petitioner failed to indicate in the petition that it was appealing 

a December 2025 BOR decision. The BOR decision filed with Petitioner’s Motion for 

Reconsideration indicates that the property’s 2025 assessed value (AV) was increased 

from $0 to $288,900, and that the taxable value (TV) was increased from $0 to 

$280,980. The stated reasons for the correction are clerical error/mutual mistake of fact 

and nonprofit exemption denial. 

 

Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 35 days of the December 2025 BOR decision, 

as required by MCL 205.735a(6),3 and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was properly invoked 

with respect to that decision. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the property’s true cash 

value (TCV) is limited to any errors addressed by the BOR, however, as assessment 

disputes for commercial properties must be filed with the Tribunal on or before May 31

Page 2

M

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 

RECEIVED 

FEB 0 ¢ 2026 

ESCHATON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MOAHR Docket No. 26-000046 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

IL. INTRODUCTION AND STANDARD 

Petitioner, Eschaton LLC, moves for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s January 14, 2026, 

Order of Dismissal, which dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on an alleged failure 

to comply with MCL 205.735a(6). 

Reconsideration is warranted because the Tribunal misapprehended both the nature of the 

appeal and the operative notice date, resulting in a clear error of law. Specifically, the Tribunal 

assumed that Petitioner received timely notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value sufficient 

to trigger the May 31 statutory deadline. That assumption is incorrect. 

This Motion does not seek equitable relief. It identifies a jurisdictional and constitutional 

defect in the dismissal order. 

II. MATERIAL FACTS MISAPPREHENDED BY THE TRIBUNAL 

IE 

Petitioner did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until

Page 2

3. 

That notice reflected substantive Board of Review action, including: 

a. 

Grant of a property exemption, 

b. 

Correction based on clerical error or mutual mistake of fact, and 

¢. 

A tax status change (BOR Reason Codes 14, 15, and 21). 

4. 

Petitioner filed their Tribunal petition on January 8, 2026, within the appeal 

period stated in the notice and within 30 days of receipt of the first notice of the 2025 assessment 

or taxable value.(See Exhibit 2) 

5. 

That this Honorable Court dismissed the Petition on January 14, 2026, for the 

following reasons: 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that: 

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal 

offices were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal 

has 

no 

equitable 

power 

to 

waive 

or 

otherwise 

disregard 

statutory 

filing 

requirements and deadlines, it has no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief 

requested. See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, _Mich_; _NW3d_(2025). (See Exhibit 

3) 

6. 

That this

Page 3

This

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 

Eschaton LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 26-000046 

 

City of Detroit, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Jason C. Grinnell 

 

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 

ORDER REINSTATING CASE 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

On February 5, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider 

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on January 14, 2026. In the motion, 

Petitioner states that it did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment until December 9, 

2025, when the December 2025 Board of Review (BOR) issued an Affidavit of 

Correction.1 Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 30 days of this decision on 

January 8, 2026. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the case file and finds that Petitioner has 

demonstrated a palpable error relative to the Order of Dismissal that misled the Tribunal 

and the parties and that would have resulted in a different disposition if the error was 

corrected.2 Specifically, Petitioner failed to indicate in the petition that it was appealing 

a December 2025 BOR decision. The BOR decision filed with Petitioner’s Motion for 

Reconsideration indicates that the property’s 2025 assessed value (AV) was increased 

from $0 to $288,900, and that the taxable value (TV) was increased from $0 to 

$280,980. The stated reasons for the correction are clerical error/mutual mistake of fact 

and nonprofit exemption denial. 

 

Petitioner’s appeal was timely filed within 35 days of the December 2025 BOR decision, 

as required by MCL 205.735a(6),3 and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction was properly invoked 

with respect to that decision. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the property’s true cash 

value (TCV) is limited to any errors addressed by the BOR, however, as assessment 

disputes for commercial properties must be filed with the Tribunal on or before May 31

Page 2

M

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 

RECEIVED 

FEB 0 ¢ 2026 

ESCHATON LLC, 

Petitioner, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MOAHR Docket No. 26-000046 

v. 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

Respondent. 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

IL. INTRODUCTION AND STANDARD 

Petitioner, Eschaton LLC, moves for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s January 14, 2026, 

Order of Dismissal, which dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on an alleged failure 

to comply with MCL 205.735a(6). 

Reconsideration is warranted because the Tribunal misapprehended both the nature of the 

appeal and the operative notice date, resulting in a clear error of law. Specifically, the Tribunal 

assumed that Petitioner received timely notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value sufficient 

to trigger the May 31 statutory deadline. That assumption is incorrect. 

This Motion does not seek equitable relief. It identifies a jurisdictional and constitutional 

defect in the dismissal order. 

II. MATERIAL FACTS MISAPPREHENDED BY THE TRIBUNAL 

IE 

Petitioner did not receive notice of the 2025 assessment or taxable value until

Page 2

3. 

That notice reflected substantive Board of Review action, including: 

a. 

Grant of a property exemption, 

b. 

Correction based on clerical error or mutual mistake of fact, and 

¢. 

A tax status change (BOR Reason Codes 14, 15, and 21). 

4. 

Petitioner filed their Tribunal petition on January 8, 2026, within the appeal 

period stated in the notice and within 30 days of receipt of the first notice of the 2025 assessment 

or taxable value.(See Exhibit 2) 

5. 

That this Honorable Court dismissed the Petition on January 14, 2026, for the 

following reasons: 

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that: 

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal 

offices were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal 

has 

no 

equitable 

power 

to 

waive 

or 

otherwise 

disregard 

statutory 

filing 

requirements and deadlines, it has no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief 

requested. See Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, _Mich_; _NW3d_(2025). (See Exhibit 

3) 

6. 

That this

Page 3

This

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

Eschaton LCC, 

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 ENTIRE TRIBUNAL

v 

 MTT Docket No. 26-000046

City of Detroit,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that:

The petition was not filed by May 31 or the next business day after the Tribunal offices 

were closed. See MCL 205.735a(6). As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no 

equitable power to waive or otherwise disregard statutory filing requirements and 

deadlines, it has no authority to hear the appeal or grant the relief requested. See 

Sixarp, LLC v Byron Twp, __Mich__; __NW3d__ (2025). 

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

This order resolves all pending issues 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 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

Page 2

MTT

Page 3

STATE

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

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

ESCHATON LLC, 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

MOAHR Docket No. _____________ 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. Property Parcel No: 03003238 

 

2. The property identified above is real property. The property is Commercial property. 

 

3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? 

 

NA 

 

4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? 

 

YES 

 

5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements 

filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

NA 

 

6. The property identified above is classified as 

 

201- COMMERCIAL 

 

7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s 

___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

This matter is subject to litigation in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Case No. 25-015101-

CB. 

 

8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which 

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue 

(attach additional page if necessary):

Page 2

2 

 

NA 

 

9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification 

or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list 

the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over 

the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

We have timely appealed. 

 

10. The property or properties at issue are located in WAYNE County. The property or properties’ 

address is: 

 

4535 CHRYSLER 

DETROIT, MI 48201 

 

11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental 

unit): 

 

CITY OF DETROIT 

 

 

12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

 

375 LODGE 

DETROIT, MI 48214 

 

13. This

Page 3

3

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

Eschaton LCC, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

v

MTT Docket No.: 26-000046

City of Detroit, 

Respondent.

NOTICE OF DOCKET NUMBER

TAKE NOTICE that an Entire Tribunal petition has been filed and the above-noted 

docket number has been assigned to that petition. This docket number shall be noted 

on the petition and the petition shall be served within 45 days of the issuance of 

this notice, as required by TTR 227 and MCL 205.735a, even if the petition was served 

when filed. A proof of service shall also be filed with the Tribunal within 45 days of the 

issuance of this notice evidencing the service of the petition. 

If you submitted a proof of service with the petition, you must still serve the petition and 

file a second proof of service including the docket number, pursuant to this notice. 

Failure to serve the petition and file a proof of service within 45 days of the issuance of 

the notice may result in the dismissal of this case.

Under TTR 235(1), “[t]he respondent shall file an answer or responsive motion within 28 

days after the date of service of the petition with noted docket number.” Failure to do so 

will result in Respondent being placed in default.

The docket number also needs to be noted on all other documents submitted in this 

case. Further, the assignment of the docket number does not mean that the Tribunal 

has authority over the petition or that the petition complies with statutory requirements 

or the Tribunal’s rules.

By: __Tribunal Clerk________

Entered: January 13, 2026

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

1 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

 

ESCHATON LLC, 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

MOAHR Docket No. _____________ 

v. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CITY OF DETROIT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ENTIRE TRIBUNAL PROPERTY TAX PETITION 

 

1. Property Parcel No: 03003238 

 

2. The property identified above is real property. The property is Commercial property. 

 

3. If more than one parcel of real property is under appeal, are the properties contiguous? 

 

NA 

 

4. Are all of the parcels of personal property located on a parcel of real property under appeal? 

 

YES 

 

5. If parcels of personal property are under appeal, when were the personal property statements 

filed by parcel number (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

NA 

 

6. The property identified above is classified as 

 

201- COMMERCIAL 

 

7. If the assessment or assessments at issue were protested, the protest was made to Respondent’s 

___ March ___ July ___December Board of Review. 

 

This matter is subject to litigation in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Case No. 25-015101-

CB. 

 

8. If a protest was required and no protest was made, list the separate and specific facts upon which 

Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over the assessment or assessments at issue 

(attach additional page if necessary):

Page 2

2 

 

NA 

 

9. If the appeal was not submitted by the deadline for the filing of an appeal for the classification 

or classifications of the properties at issue (i.e., May 31 or July 31 of the tax year involved), list 

the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to invoke the Tribunal’s authority over 

the assessment or assessments at issue (attach additional page if necessary): 

 

We have timely appealed. 

 

10. The property or properties at issue are located in WAYNE County. The property or properties’ 

address is: 

 

4535 CHRYSLER 

DETROIT, MI 48201 

 

11. The assessment or assessments at issue were established by the (applicable local governmental 

unit): 

 

CITY OF DETROIT 

 

 

12. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 

 

375 LODGE 

DETROIT, MI 48214 

 

13. This

Page 3

3

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

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Entire Tribunal Case Information Sheet - Petitioner

MOAHR DOCKET NO. 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer type: Organization

First Name/Company Name

M.I.

Last Name

ESCATION LCC

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

4535 Chrysler

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48201

Telephone Number

313994492

Fax Number

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

NHoo996937@aol.com

Section 2: Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information

First Name

Darwyn

M.I.

Last Name

Fair

Firm Name (if any)

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

535 Griswold

Ste 111-554

City or Town

Detroit

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48226

Telephone Number

313-967-0595

Fax Number

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

dpfair@dpfairlaw.com

Section 5: Issue

Please designate one: 

Valuation – Fill out Sections 4, 5, & 6 below

Section 6: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you 

appealing?1

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

535 Griswold

Ste 111-554

Detroit

Michigan

48226

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

City of Detroit (Wayne)

County

Wayne

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? No

(*If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.)

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Section 7: Check which of the following you are appealing (check all that apply)

True Cash and Taxable Values, Taxable Value Only (calculation), Tax Bill, Other (please explain)

Section 8: Valuation Information for Each Parcel under Appeal

Parcel Number:

03003238

Classification of Property: Real 

Commercial

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the Board of Review:

288900

Current Taxable Value as established by the Board of Review:

280980

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as True Cash Value)?

0

Multiply the True

Page 3

STA

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.