Jado Northern Michigan LLC, Petitioner V Township Of Benzonia, 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 

JADO Northern Michigan LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003619 

 

Benzonia Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

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

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

23-002443 on October 3, 2024. Petitioner was ordered to file a severed docket petition 

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

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

default. Petitioner was given an additional 14 days to cure the default, and they did not 

respond. Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the latter stated that failure 

to comply will result in the dismissal of this case. 

 

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

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

are: 

 

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

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

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

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

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

serve the interests of justice.2 

 

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

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

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

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

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

case. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

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

 

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

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003619 

Page 2 of 2 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

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

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

Appeals. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

Alternatively, you may file a claim of appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals. If the 

claim is filed within 21 days of the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal of right.” If 

the claim is filed more than 21 days after the entry of the final decision, it is an “appeal 

by leave.” A copy of the claim of appeal must be filed with the Tribunal to certify the 

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: February 13, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 

JADO Northern Michigan LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003619 

 

Benzonia Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

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

above-captioned docket from docket number 23-002443 on October 3, 2024. The order 

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

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

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

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

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

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

comply with this order.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

Entered: January 14, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

 

 

 

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003619 

Page 2 of 2 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provided by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 

JADO Northern Michigan LLC, 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket Nos. 23-002443 

& 24-003619 

 

Benzonia Township, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-003619 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on July 16, 2024. The 

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

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

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

exceptions).” 

 

On August 5, 2024, Respondent filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, 

Respondent states that the POJ treats all 11 parcels identically, while the evidence 

shows that parcels 02-450-400-20, 02-450-400-21, 02-450-400-28, and 02-450-400-29 

should not be discounted because they are adjacent to completed roads and 

improvements. 

 

Pursuant to the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the POJ, lots 

adjacent to completed roads with improvements have a higher value than the lots with 

no completed roads that will require further infrastructure improvements. While parcels 

02-450-400-28 and 02-450-400-29 were not part of the appraisal submitted by 

Petitioner, they are a part of this appeal and should be valued in light of their proximity 

to the existing road, utilities, and improvements. In addition, both Respondent’s 

evidence and Petitioner’s appraisal show that parcels 02-450-400-20 and 02-450-400-

21 are served by a completed portion of Wild Laurel Lane in a manner similar to parcels 

018 and 019. 

 

Petitioner has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Respondent’s 

exceptions. 

 

The Tribunal has considered the exceptions, the response, and the case file and finds 

that the ALJ erred in rendering the POJ. Specifically, Petitioner’s appraiser witness 

testified that while parcels 02-450-400-28 and 02-450-400-29 were not included in the

Page 2

MTT Docket Nos. 23-002443 & 24-003619 

Page 2 of 7 

 

appraisal, they do have roads leading up to them and as a result are worth more once a 

Homeowners Association (HOA) is in place. As such, the Tribunal finds that these two 

parcels are worth more than those without roads leading up to them; however, not the 

full value assigned by Respondent as there was no evidence indicating utilities or other 

infrastructure are in place as well as there being no HOA in place. As there is no 

evidence on record indicating the value for parcels having only a road in place, the 

Tribunal finds it appropriate to add one-third of the value between a parcel with no 

roads, infrastructure, or HOA, and a parcel with a road, infrastructure, and an HOA in 

place. Therefore, the Tribunal finds a TCV of $52,000 is appropriate for parcels 02-450-

400-28 and 02-450-400-29. After a review of the evidence and testimony on record, the 

Tribunal finds the evidence does not support Respondent’s contention that parcels 02-

450-400-20 and 02-450-400-21 are adjacent to a road. Therefore, these two parcels 

are not worth more than the values established in the POJ. 

 

The ALJ considered the testimony and evidence submitted and made specific findings 

of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to the 2023 tax year. The ALJ’s determination, 

as modified above, is supported by the testimony, evidence and applicable statutory 

and case law. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Given the above, Respondent has shown good cause to justify modifying the POJ.2 As 

such, the Tribunal modifies the POJ, as indicated herein,and adopts the modified POJ 

as the Tribunal’s final decision in this case.3 The Tribunal also incorporates by 

reference, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ, as 

modified herein, in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a result: 

 

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

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

year at issue, are as follows: 

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-20 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$20,171

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

2 See MCL 205.762. 

3 See MCL 205.726.

Page 3

MTT Docket Nos. 23-002443 & 24-003619 

Page 3 of 7 

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-21 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$20,171

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-22 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$14,008

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-23 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$14,008

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-24 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$14,008

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-25 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$14,008

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-26 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$14,008

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-27 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$14,008

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-28 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$125,000

$62,500

$20,171

 

Parcel Number: 02-450-400-29

Page 4

MTT Docket Nos.

Page 5

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.