Marilyn Myers, Petitioner V Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, 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 

Marilyn Myers, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(4) 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On July 25, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4), arguing that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter 

as the Tribunal’s authority under the property tax laws of Michigan does not extend to 

disputes arising from the Drain Code.1 Respondent further requested that the Tribunal 

award it costs and attorney fees as its extensive efforts to direct information to the 

Petitioner regarding the proper appeal process were disregarded and additional 

litigation costs were incurred as a result. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion or request for costs. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. 

Therefore, the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a 

decision on such motions.2 In 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.3 In addition, the evidence offered in 

 

1 Respondent cites Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Charter Twp, 299 Mich App 138 (2012), and Wells 

Fargo Rail Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 344 Mich App 351 (2022) to support this contention. 

2 See TTR 201. 

3 Id.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 2 of 4 

 

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.”4 A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where 

the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.5 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the file in this case and finds that 

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) must be granted 

as the Tribunal has no authority over the appeal. Petitioner filed this appeal on May 22, 

2025, disputing the Tonkin Drain Assessment. Pursuant to MCL 205.731(a), “[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.”6 The record establishes that the special assessment 

at issue in this case was not levied “under the property tax laws of this state,” but under 

the Drain Code of 1956. MCL 205.703(f) specifically states that “ ‘property tax laws’ 

does not include the drain code of 1956.”7 The Drain Code itself grants sole authority 

over drain assessments to probate courts. Specifically, “[t]he owner of any land in the 

drainage district . . . which may feel aggrieved by the apportionment of benefits so made 

by the commissioner, may, within 10 days after the day of review of such 

apportionments, appeal therefrom and for such purpose make an application to the 

probate court of the proper county for the appointment of a board of review.”8 The 

Tribunal and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as 

much,9 and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed 

further except to dismiss the action.”10 

 

The Tribunal further finds that it “may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a 

contested case . . . .”11 The Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Procedures Act 

provide the Tribunal with some criteria in determining whether an award of costs is 

appropriate, but the Court of Appeals has held that costs are entirely within the 

Tribunal’s discretion, and it is not limited to circumstances where the requesting party 

 

4 MCR

Page 3

MTT Docket

Page 4

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 

Marilyn Myers, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(4) 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On July 25, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4), arguing that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter 

as the Tribunal’s authority under the property tax laws of Michigan does not extend to 

disputes arising from the Drain Code.1 Respondent further requested that the Tribunal 

award it costs and attorney fees as its extensive efforts to direct information to the 

Petitioner regarding the proper appeal process were disregarded and additional 

litigation costs were incurred as a result. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion or request for costs. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. 

Therefore, the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a 

decision on such motions.2 In 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.3 In addition, the evidence offered in 

 

1 Respondent cites Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Charter Twp, 299 Mich App 138 (2012), and Wells 

Fargo Rail Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 344 Mich App 351 (2022) to support this contention. 

2 See TTR 201. 

3 Id.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 2 of 4 

 

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.”4 A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where 

the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.5 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the file in this case and finds that 

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) must be granted 

as the Tribunal has no authority over the appeal. Petitioner filed this appeal on May 22, 

2025, disputing the Tonkin Drain Assessment. Pursuant to MCL 205.731(a), “[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.”6 The record establishes that the special assessment 

at issue in this case was not levied “under the property tax laws of this state,” but under 

the Drain Code of 1956. MCL 205.703(f) specifically states that “ ‘property tax laws’ 

does not include the drain code of 1956.”7 The Drain Code itself grants sole authority 

over drain assessments to probate courts. Specifically, “[t]he owner of any land in the 

drainage district . . . which may feel aggrieved by the apportionment of benefits so made 

by the commissioner, may, within 10 days after the day of review of such 

apportionments, appeal therefrom and for such purpose make an application to the 

probate court of the proper county for the appointment of a board of review.”8 The 

Tribunal and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as 

much,9 and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed 

further except to dismiss the action.”10 

 

The Tribunal further finds that it “may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a 

contested case . . . .”11 The Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Procedures Act 

provide the Tribunal with some criteria in determining whether an award of costs is 

appropriate, but the Court of Appeals has held that costs are entirely within the 

Tribunal’s discretion, and it is not limited to circumstances where the requesting party 

 

4 MCR

Page 3

MTT Docket

Page 4

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

Page 1 of 9 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER/TONKIN DRAIN 

DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MOAHR DOCKET No. 25-002552-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In Pro Per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorney for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION1 

AND REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Mecosta County Drain Commissioner and Tonkin Drain 

Drainage District, through counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. Respondent also 

respectfully requests the Tribunal to award costs, as explained in more detail below. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 

The Tonkin Drain (the “Drain”) is an intra-county drain under the jurisdiction of the 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner. The Drain was established in 1904. Following a petition 

 

1 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r 792.10225 (Motions), subsection 6, provides that pleadings “on motions shall be limited to the 

motion and a brief in support of the motion.” Respondent’s motion and brief are combined herein for efficiency.

Page 2

Page 2 of 9 

 

submitted to the Drain Commissioner under Michigan’s Drain Code (Public Act 40 of 1956, as 

amended) for maintenance and improvement of the Drain, a Board of Determination at a properly 

noticed public hearing found the petitioned work to be necessary and conducive to public health, 

convenience, or welfare. The Board of Determination also found that revisions to the Drainage 

District Boundaries are just and equitable. 

Thereafter, a Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries and Review of 

Apportionments (“Day of Review”), open to the public, was held on May 13, 2025. Notice of the 

Day of Review was properly and lawfully provided pursuant to the Drain Code’s requirements. The 

Drain Commissioner also provided a live informal webinar prior to the Day of Review (information 

and instructions for joining the webinar on zoom were provided on the Day of Review Notice, as 

well as a phone number to call-in – and a telephone number for property owners to call with any 

questions at all about the Day of Review). The Day of Review Notice included a Section titled 

“Appeals” that specifically stated: “You may appeal the Drain Commissioner’s decision to revise 

the district boundary to the Mecosta County Circuit Court within ten (10) days. You may appeal 

the Drain Commissioner’s determination of apportionments to the Mecosta County Probate Court 

within ten (10) days.” Appeal information was also provided to landowners at the informational 

webinar and at the Day of Review. 

Following the Day of Review, the assessment roll was signed on May 14, 2025. Appeals 

were filed with the Mecosta County Probate Court, pursuant to the Drain Code, and the Probate 

Court appointed a Board of Review. Landowners within the Drainage District were also mailed a 

letter, dated May 28, 2025, notifying them of the Board of Review. On June 4, 2025, the Board of 

Review revised apportionments under the procedures and process set forth in the Drain Code. 

After numerous, repeated notices about where and when to file any appeals, Petitioner filed 

this appeal with the Tax Tribunal. Michigan law expressly provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Page 3

Page 3 of 9 

 

over special assessments under property tax laws does not include assessments under the Drain 

Code. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to dismiss this matter. In addition, 

since notice was given to Petitioner on multiple occasions about the proper appeal process; specific 

information was provided to Petitioner that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; and Petitioner has not 

withdrawn this matter (unilaterally or by joint motion to withdraw), Respondent has no other option 

but to request the Tribunal to grant costs. 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 7 of the Drain Code provides for the review of the apportionment of benefits.2 Such 

review is conducted at a public hearing (the Day of Review of Apportionments). A Day of Review 

of Apportionments is an opportunity for property owners to review the percentage of benefit of the 

drain assigned or apportioned to their

Page 4

Page

Page 5

P

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 

Marilyn Myers, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(4) 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On July 25, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4), arguing that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter 

as the Tribunal’s authority under the property tax laws of Michigan does not extend to 

disputes arising from the Drain Code.1 Respondent further requested that the Tribunal 

award it costs and attorney fees as its extensive efforts to direct information to the 

Petitioner regarding the proper appeal process were disregarded and additional 

litigation costs were incurred as a result. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion or request for costs. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. 

Therefore, the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a 

decision on such motions.2 In 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.3 In addition, the evidence offered in 

 

1 Respondent cites Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Charter Twp, 299 Mich App 138 (2012), and Wells 

Fargo Rail Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 344 Mich App 351 (2022) to support this contention. 

2 See TTR 201. 

3 Id.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 2 of 4 

 

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.”4 A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where 

the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.5 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the file in this case and finds that 

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) must be granted 

as the Tribunal has no authority over the appeal. Petitioner filed this appeal on May 22, 

2025, disputing the Tonkin Drain Assessment. Pursuant to MCL 205.731(a), “[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.”6 The record establishes that the special assessment 

at issue in this case was not levied “under the property tax laws of this state,” but under 

the Drain Code of 1956. MCL 205.703(f) specifically states that “ ‘property tax laws’ 

does not include the drain code of 1956.”7 The Drain Code itself grants sole authority 

over drain assessments to probate courts. Specifically, “[t]he owner of any land in the 

drainage district . . . which may feel aggrieved by the apportionment of benefits so made 

by the commissioner, may, within 10 days after the day of review of such 

apportionments, appeal therefrom and for such purpose make an application to the 

probate court of the proper county for the appointment of a board of review.”8 The 

Tribunal and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as 

much,9 and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed 

further except to dismiss the action.”10 

 

The Tribunal further finds that it “may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a 

contested case . . . .”11 The Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Procedures Act 

provide the Tribunal with some criteria in determining whether an award of costs is 

appropriate, but the Court of Appeals has held that costs are entirely within the 

Tribunal’s discretion, and it is not limited to circumstances where the requesting party 

 

4 MCR

Page 3

MTT Docket

Page 4

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

Page 1 of 9 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER/TONKIN DRAIN 

DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MOAHR DOCKET No. 25-002552-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In Pro Per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorney for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION1 

AND REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Mecosta County Drain Commissioner and Tonkin Drain 

Drainage District, through counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. Respondent also 

respectfully requests the Tribunal to award costs, as explained in more detail below. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 

The Tonkin Drain (the “Drain”) is an intra-county drain under the jurisdiction of the 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner. The Drain was established in 1904. Following a petition 

 

1 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r 792.10225 (Motions), subsection 6, provides that pleadings “on motions shall be limited to the 

motion and a brief in support of the motion.” Respondent’s motion and brief are combined herein for efficiency.

Page 2

Page 2 of 9 

 

submitted to the Drain Commissioner under Michigan’s Drain Code (Public Act 40 of 1956, as 

amended) for maintenance and improvement of the Drain, a Board of Determination at a properly 

noticed public hearing found the petitioned work to be necessary and conducive to public health, 

convenience, or welfare. The Board of Determination also found that revisions to the Drainage 

District Boundaries are just and equitable. 

Thereafter, a Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries and Review of 

Apportionments (“Day of Review”), open to the public, was held on May 13, 2025. Notice of the 

Day of Review was properly and lawfully provided pursuant to the Drain Code’s requirements. The 

Drain Commissioner also provided a live informal webinar prior to the Day of Review (information 

and instructions for joining the webinar on zoom were provided on the Day of Review Notice, as 

well as a phone number to call-in – and a telephone number for property owners to call with any 

questions at all about the Day of Review). The Day of Review Notice included a Section titled 

“Appeals” that specifically stated: “You may appeal the Drain Commissioner’s decision to revise 

the district boundary to the Mecosta County Circuit Court within ten (10) days. You may appeal 

the Drain Commissioner’s determination of apportionments to the Mecosta County Probate Court 

within ten (10) days.” Appeal information was also provided to landowners at the informational 

webinar and at the Day of Review. 

Following the Day of Review, the assessment roll was signed on May 14, 2025. Appeals 

were filed with the Mecosta County Probate Court, pursuant to the Drain Code, and the Probate 

Court appointed a Board of Review. Landowners within the Drainage District were also mailed a 

letter, dated May 28, 2025, notifying them of the Board of Review. On June 4, 2025, the Board of 

Review revised apportionments under the procedures and process set forth in the Drain Code. 

After numerous, repeated notices about where and when to file any appeals, Petitioner filed 

this appeal with the Tax Tribunal. Michigan law expressly provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Page 3

Page 3 of 9 

 

over special assessments under property tax laws does not include assessments under the Drain 

Code. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to dismiss this matter. In addition, 

since notice was given to Petitioner on multiple occasions about the proper appeal process; specific 

information was provided to Petitioner that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; and Petitioner has not 

withdrawn this matter (unilaterally or by joint motion to withdraw), Respondent has no other option 

but to request the Tribunal to grant costs. 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 7 of the Drain Code provides for the review of the apportionment of benefits.2 Such 

review is conducted at a public hearing (the Day of Review of Apportionments). A Day of Review 

of Apportionments is an opportunity for property owners to review the percentage of benefit of the 

drain assigned or apportioned to their

Page 4

Page

Page 5

P

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 

Marilyn Myers, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

UNDER MCR 2.116(C)(4) 

 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

On July 25, 2025, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 

2.116(C)(4), arguing that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter 

as the Tribunal’s authority under the property tax laws of Michigan does not extend to 

disputes arising from the Drain Code.1 Respondent further requested that the Tribunal 

award it costs and attorney fees as its extensive efforts to direct information to the 

Petitioner regarding the proper appeal process were disregarded and additional 

litigation costs were incurred as a result. 

 

Petitioner has not filed a response to the motion or request for costs. 

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

There is no specific Tribunal rule governing motions for summary disposition. 

Therefore, the Tribunal is bound to follow the Michigan Rules of Court in rendering a 

decision on such motions.2 In 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.3 In addition, the evidence offered in 

 

1 Respondent cites Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v Pittsfield Charter Twp, 299 Mich App 138 (2012), and Wells 

Fargo Rail Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 344 Mich App 351 (2022) to support this contention. 

2 See TTR 201. 

3 Id.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002552 

Page 2 of 4 

 

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.”4 A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(4) is appropriate where 

the plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies.5 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The Tribunal has considered the motion and the file in this case and finds that 

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) must be granted 

as the Tribunal has no authority over the appeal. Petitioner filed this appeal on May 22, 

2025, disputing the Tonkin Drain Assessment. Pursuant to MCL 205.731(a), “[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.”6 The record establishes that the special assessment 

at issue in this case was not levied “under the property tax laws of this state,” but under 

the Drain Code of 1956. MCL 205.703(f) specifically states that “ ‘property tax laws’ 

does not include the drain code of 1956.”7 The Drain Code itself grants sole authority 

over drain assessments to probate courts. Specifically, “[t]he owner of any land in the 

drainage district . . . which may feel aggrieved by the apportionment of benefits so made 

by the commissioner, may, within 10 days after the day of review of such 

apportionments, appeal therefrom and for such purpose make an application to the 

probate court of the proper county for the appointment of a board of review.”8 The 

Tribunal and the Michigan Court of Appeals have both previously acknowledged as 

much,9 and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction should not proceed 

further except to dismiss the action.”10 

 

The Tribunal further finds that it “may, upon motion or its own initiative, award costs in a 

contested case . . . .”11 The Michigan Court Rules and Administrative Procedures Act 

provide the Tribunal with some criteria in determining whether an award of costs is 

appropriate, but the Court of Appeals has held that costs are entirely within the 

Tribunal’s discretion, and it is not limited to circumstances where the requesting party 

 

4 MCR

Page 3

MTT Docket

Page 4

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

Page 1 of 9 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER/TONKIN DRAIN 

DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MOAHR DOCKET No. 25-002552-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In Pro Per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorney for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION1 

AND REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Mecosta County Drain Commissioner and Tonkin Drain 

Drainage District, through counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. Respondent also 

respectfully requests the Tribunal to award costs, as explained in more detail below. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 

The Tonkin Drain (the “Drain”) is an intra-county drain under the jurisdiction of the 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner. The Drain was established in 1904. Following a petition 

 

1 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r 792.10225 (Motions), subsection 6, provides that pleadings “on motions shall be limited to the 

motion and a brief in support of the motion.” Respondent’s motion and brief are combined herein for efficiency.

Page 2

Page 2 of 9 

 

submitted to the Drain Commissioner under Michigan’s Drain Code (Public Act 40 of 1956, as 

amended) for maintenance and improvement of the Drain, a Board of Determination at a properly 

noticed public hearing found the petitioned work to be necessary and conducive to public health, 

convenience, or welfare. The Board of Determination also found that revisions to the Drainage 

District Boundaries are just and equitable. 

Thereafter, a Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries and Review of 

Apportionments (“Day of Review”), open to the public, was held on May 13, 2025. Notice of the 

Day of Review was properly and lawfully provided pursuant to the Drain Code’s requirements. The 

Drain Commissioner also provided a live informal webinar prior to the Day of Review (information 

and instructions for joining the webinar on zoom were provided on the Day of Review Notice, as 

well as a phone number to call-in – and a telephone number for property owners to call with any 

questions at all about the Day of Review). The Day of Review Notice included a Section titled 

“Appeals” that specifically stated: “You may appeal the Drain Commissioner’s decision to revise 

the district boundary to the Mecosta County Circuit Court within ten (10) days. You may appeal 

the Drain Commissioner’s determination of apportionments to the Mecosta County Probate Court 

within ten (10) days.” Appeal information was also provided to landowners at the informational 

webinar and at the Day of Review. 

Following the Day of Review, the assessment roll was signed on May 14, 2025. Appeals 

were filed with the Mecosta County Probate Court, pursuant to the Drain Code, and the Probate 

Court appointed a Board of Review. Landowners within the Drainage District were also mailed a 

letter, dated May 28, 2025, notifying them of the Board of Review. On June 4, 2025, the Board of 

Review revised apportionments under the procedures and process set forth in the Drain Code. 

After numerous, repeated notices about where and when to file any appeals, Petitioner filed 

this appeal with the Tax Tribunal. Michigan law expressly provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Page 3

Page 3 of 9 

 

over special assessments under property tax laws does not include assessments under the Drain 

Code. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to dismiss this matter. In addition, 

since notice was given to Petitioner on multiple occasions about the proper appeal process; specific 

information was provided to Petitioner that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; and Petitioner has not 

withdrawn this matter (unilaterally or by joint motion to withdraw), Respondent has no other option 

but to request the Tribunal to grant costs. 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 7 of the Drain Code provides for the review of the apportionment of benefits.2 Such 

review is conducted at a public hearing (the Day of Review of Apportionments). A Day of Review 

of Apportionments is an opportunity for property owners to review the percentage of benefit of the 

drain assigned or apportioned to their

Page 4

Page

Page 5

P

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 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 25-002552 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In pro per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

______________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

Jamy A. Staffeld states that on July 25, 2025 she served a copy of Respondent’s Motion and 

Brief for Summary Disposition and Request for Costs and this Proof of Service, upon the following 

via first class mail: 

Marilyn Myers 

1719 Sherman Street 

Big Rapids, MI 49307 

 

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

Page 1 of 9 

 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND RULES 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER/TONKIN DRAIN 

DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MOAHR DOCKET No. 25-002552-TT 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In Pro Per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorney for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

 

RESPONDENT’S MOTION AND BRIEF FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION1 

AND REQUEST FOR COSTS 

 

NOW COMES Respondent, Mecosta County Drain Commissioner and Tonkin Drain 

Drainage District, through counsel, and moves for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 

2.116(C)(4) because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s appeal. Respondent also 

respectfully requests the Tribunal to award costs, as explained in more detail below. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY 

The Tonkin Drain (the “Drain”) is an intra-county drain under the jurisdiction of the 

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner. The Drain was established in 1904. Following a petition 

 

1 MICH. ADMIN. CODE r 792.10225 (Motions), subsection 6, provides that pleadings “on motions shall be limited to the 

motion and a brief in support of the motion.” Respondent’s motion and brief are combined herein for efficiency.

Page 2

Page 2 of 9 

 

submitted to the Drain Commissioner under Michigan’s Drain Code (Public Act 40 of 1956, as 

amended) for maintenance and improvement of the Drain, a Board of Determination at a properly 

noticed public hearing found the petitioned work to be necessary and conducive to public health, 

convenience, or welfare. The Board of Determination also found that revisions to the Drainage 

District Boundaries are just and equitable. 

Thereafter, a Day of Review of Drainage District Boundaries and Review of 

Apportionments (“Day of Review”), open to the public, was held on May 13, 2025. Notice of the 

Day of Review was properly and lawfully provided pursuant to the Drain Code’s requirements. The 

Drain Commissioner also provided a live informal webinar prior to the Day of Review (information 

and instructions for joining the webinar on zoom were provided on the Day of Review Notice, as 

well as a phone number to call-in – and a telephone number for property owners to call with any 

questions at all about the Day of Review). The Day of Review Notice included a Section titled 

“Appeals” that specifically stated: “You may appeal the Drain Commissioner’s decision to revise 

the district boundary to the Mecosta County Circuit Court within ten (10) days. You may appeal 

the Drain Commissioner’s determination of apportionments to the Mecosta County Probate Court 

within ten (10) days.” Appeal information was also provided to landowners at the informational 

webinar and at the Day of Review. 

Following the Day of Review, the assessment roll was signed on May 14, 2025. Appeals 

were filed with the Mecosta County Probate Court, pursuant to the Drain Code, and the Probate 

Court appointed a Board of Review. Landowners within the Drainage District were also mailed a 

letter, dated May 28, 2025, notifying them of the Board of Review. On June 4, 2025, the Board of 

Review revised apportionments under the procedures and process set forth in the Drain Code. 

After numerous, repeated notices about where and when to file any appeals, Petitioner filed 

this appeal with the Tax Tribunal. Michigan law expressly provides that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Page 3

Page 3 of 9 

 

over special assessments under property tax laws does not include assessments under the Drain 

Code. Therefore, Respondent respectfully requests the Tribunal to dismiss this matter. In addition, 

since notice was given to Petitioner on multiple occasions about the proper appeal process; specific 

information was provided to Petitioner that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction; and Petitioner has not 

withdrawn this matter (unilaterally or by joint motion to withdraw), Respondent has no other option 

but to request the Tribunal to grant costs. 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 7 of the Drain Code provides for the review of the apportionment of benefits.2 Such 

review is conducted at a public hearing (the Day of Review of Apportionments). A Day of Review 

of Apportionments is an opportunity for property owners to review the percentage of benefit of the 

drain assigned or apportioned to their

Page 4

Page

Page 5

P

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 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 25-002552 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In pro per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

______________________________________/ 

 

APPEARANCE 

 

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

of Respondent, MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, in the above-entitled matter. 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: June 30, 2025 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

 

 

By: __________________________________ 

 Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

 4151 Okemos Road 

 Okemos, MI 48864 

 (517) 381-0100

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

MARILYN MYERS, 

 

 

Petitioner, 

 

v 

 

MECOSTA COUNTY DRAIN 

COMMISSIONER, 

 

 

Respondent. 

MTT DOCKET No. 25-002552 

 

PARCEL NO. 54-05-021-007-800 

 

 

______________________________________/ 

 

Marilyn Myers 

In pro per 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, Michigan 49307 

(231) 796-8713 

 

Ross K. Bower II (P70574) 

Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC 

Attorneys for Respondent 

4151 Okemos Road 

Okemos, Michigan 48864 

(517) 381-0100 

Rbower@fsbrlaw.com 

______________________________________/ 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

Brian J. Fox states that on June 30, 2025 he served a copy of Appearance and this Proof of 

Service, upon the following via first class mail: 

Marilyn Myers 

7195 Herman 

Big Rapids, MI 49307 

 

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

 

belief. 

 

/s/ Brian J. Fox 

 

Brian J. Fox

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

MIC 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

RECEIVED 

MAY 29 2025 

100.00 

HIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ir or MicHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

|. BROWN, DPA 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

"Wi 

i 

MIL 

Last N; Nor cr Name 

Red 

ITIAS 

Maifing Address (No., ke P.O. Boor Rural Route) 

Ji 4S I'v 

pin 

Si 

y 

pr 

Town 

State 

P Code 

[§ 

id z 

a, de 

ne 

9s 307 

umbe 

3 

Telephon 

r 

I- 9G £113 

—— 

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

Section 2: Petitioner’s AttorneyiAuthiorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Numbe| r 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels are you 

Yes* 

Nort 

[] nia 

appealing? 

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

**f ho, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

Property Address 

=. Boe 

- 

4 c 

(No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) 

[If 

kev, list firct property’s address) 

(927 

Parcel Identification Number(s): 

54dos- oal- 

py Ao, YW, 

Oo? 

-~ 

Soo

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 

7 do vot 

@ qY=e 

My Proprxy 

vt 

cli v~ 

dhe Va [ue 

For La 

wie 

& 

—— 

<p ecio 

[ 

sess rf 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment rofl? [] Yes 

[Ml] No 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

5-13-20 

if No, explain: 

Fee Information: 

A fee of $100.00 is required for the fillng of a Special Assessment Appeal. 

Signature “required 

Petitioner or. Jal, 

by Signature: 

Jp— 

ow 

_MAAA, 

“Yea 

C-23-2F% 

’ 

0

Page 3

g/ 

7 19° 

. GRAND RAPIDS MI 493 

| 

sh 

22 MAY 2025 PM6 

L 

yi J eh Gan Tay Tribunal 

Ll 

WW. Oftawa ST, 

/ 

Sho. 

Aanshp 

4pg33 

SESEE-10TOLL 

spline pb 

pg 

peed 

Jd RAT 

Gf 

iy]

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

Marilyn Myers,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner,

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 281. 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: June 27, 2025

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

Marilyn Myers

7195 Herman

Big Rapids , MI 49307

Page 3

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

Marilyn Myers,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-002552

Mecosta County Drain Commissioner,

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 281. 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: June 27, 2025

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

MIC 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

RECEIVED 

MAY 29 2025 

100.00 

HIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

ir or MicHIGAN 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

|. BROWN, DPA 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

"Wi 

i 

MIL 

Last N; Nor cr Name 

Red 

ITIAS 

Maifing Address (No., ke P.O. Boor Rural Route) 

Ji 4S I'v 

pin 

Si 

y 

pr 

Town 

State 

P Code 

[§ 

id z 

a, de 

ne 

9s 307 

umbe 

3 

Telephon 

r 

I- 9G £113 

—— 

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

Section 2: Petitioner’s AttorneyiAuthiorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Numbe| r 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

How many 

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

parcels are you 

Yes* 

Nort 

[] nia 

appealing? 

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

**f ho, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defaulted. 

Property Address 

=. Boe 

- 

4 c 

(No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) 

[If 

kev, list firct property’s address) 

(927 

Parcel Identification Number(s): 

54dos- oal- 

py Ao, YW, 

Oo? 

-~ 

Soo

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 

7 do vot 

@ qY=e 

My Proprxy 

vt 

cli v~ 

dhe Va [ue 

For La 

wie 

& 

—— 

<p ecio 

[ 

sess rf 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment rofl? [] Yes 

[Ml] No 

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

5-13-20 

if No, explain: 

Fee Information: 

A fee of $100.00 is required for the fillng of a Special Assessment Appeal. 

Signature “required 

Petitioner or. Jal, 

by Signature: 

Jp— 

ow 

_MAAA, 

“Yea 

C-23-2F% 

’ 

0

Page 3

g/ 

7 19° 

. GRAND RAPIDS MI 493 

| 

sh 

22 MAY 2025 PM6 

L 

yi J eh Gan Tay Tribunal 

Ll 

WW. Oftawa ST, 

/ 

Sho. 

Aanshp 

4pg33 

SESEE-10TOLL 

spline pb 

pg 

peed 

Jd RAT 

Gf 

iy]

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.