Jon E Verduin, Petitioner V Township Of Crystal, 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 

Jon E Verduin, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003940 

 

Crystal 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. 

23-003168 on October 22, 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. 24-003940 

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 

Jon E Verduin, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003940 

 

Crystal 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 23-003168 on October 22, 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. 24-003940 

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 

Jon E Verduin, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MTT Docket Nos. 23-003168 

& 24-003940 

 

Crystal Township, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-003940 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Opinion and Judgment (POJ) on September 13, 

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 September 30, 2024, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, 

Petitioner focuses on the cost approach and Respondent’s testimony. Petitioner states 

that the insurance replacement value should be used to calculate true cash value 

(TCV). Petitioner provided a replacement cost valuation prepared by Farmers 

Insurance and submitted calculations using the insurance replacement cost value in 

place of Respondent’s cost new. Petitioner also rebutted Respondent’s testimony as to 

the subject property’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

 

On October 7, 2024, Respondent filed a response to the exceptions. In the response, 

Respondent states the assessor’s determination of TCV was derived from utilizing the 

State Tax Commission (STC) Cost Manual and included appropriate depreciation. The 

manual does not include insurance replacement value as an indicator of market value 

and/or TCV. Per MCL 211.10e, assessing officers are to only use the official assessor’s 

manual or any manual approved by the STC. Respondent’s TCV of the building only is 

$548,064 (cost manual minus depreciation multiplied by the economic condition factor). 

The TCV should also include any improvements to the land as well as land value. The 

total 2023 market value/TCV of the subject property is $693,200. Further, the 

classification determination of the home was not based solely on ADA compliance. The 

classification of the home as a B home indicates that the structure was custom built and 

designed. 

 

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

that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly considered the testimony and

Page 2

MTT Docket Nos. 23-003168 & 24-003940 

Page 2 of 4 

 

evidence submitted in rendering the POJ. Further, the Tribunal shall not consider any 

newly filed evidence submitted with the exceptions. All evidence to be offered at the 

hearing was required to be filed with the Tribunal and served on the opposing party no 

less than 21 days prior to the date of the hearing.1 Petitioner was informed of this 

requirement in the March 4, 2024 Notice of Hearing. Consideration of the untimely 

evidence is not appropriate at this time because it would deprive Respondent the 

opportunity to rebut the evidence at hearing and does not allow for consideration by the 

ALJ in making findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Tribunal finds that the POJ 

did not err because it is competently based on the testimony and evidence on the 

record at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal is also satisfied, given the available 

evidence, that Respondent’s cost approach is the best indicator of value within the 

meaning of MCL 211.27. Regarding Petitioner’s comments about whether the subject 

property is ADA compliant, that is not a factor in the determination of the property’s 

value through the cost approach. 

 

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

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

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

statutory and case law. 

 

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

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

make its own findings of fact and arrive at a legally supportable true cash value.”2 As 

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

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

 

Given the above, Petitioner failed to show good cause to justify modifying the POJ or 

granting a rehearing.3 As such, the Tribunal adopts the POJ as the Tribunal’s final 

decision in this case.4 The Tribunal also incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact 

and Conclusions of Law contained in the POJ in this Final Opinion and Judgment. As a 

result: 

 

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

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

issue, are as follows: 

 

Parcel Number: 59-005-400-001-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$693,200

$346,600

$346,600

 

 

 

1 TTR 287(1). 

2 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)). 

3 See MCL 205.762. 

4 See MCL 205.726.

Page 3

MTT Docket Nos. 23-003168 & 24-003940 

Page 3 of 4 

 

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

year at issue, are as follows: 

 

Parcel Number: 59-005-400-001-00 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$693,200

$346,600

$346,600

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

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

Docket No. 24-003940. 

 

IT IS

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.