Michigan

Marion A Mills, Petitioner V City Of Port Huron, Respondent

Petitioner: Marion A Mills
Respondent: City Of Port Huron

Case overview

Docket number: 25-002826-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Saint Clair
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
11	Denied	PET	7	12/17/2025	Not recorded	Download
10	Order Denying Motion	Not recorded	7	12/17/2025	Not recorded	Download
9	Response to Order	PET	7	10/27/2025	Not recorded	Download
8	Notice of No Action	Not recorded	7	10/23/2025	Not recorded	Download
7	Motion for Reconsideration was received.	PET	Not recorded	10/14/2025	$0.00	Download
6	Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/10/2025	Not recorded	Download
5	Amended Petition	PET	Not recorded	09/12/2025	Not recorded	Download
4	Order of Default of Petitioner	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/09/2025	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	09/09/2025	Not recorded	Download
2	Attachments to the Petition were filed	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/23/2025	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	07/23/2025	Not recorded	Download

Documents

25-002826.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

TUNNE™ 

xvi 

Cw 

Co 

08190 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

0] 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

RECEIVED 

OCT 2 0 2025 

Marion A. Milis, Petitioner 

v. 

City of Port Huron, Respondent 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

Presiding Judge: Patricia L. Halm 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. Reason for Reconsideration — The Tribunal Should Confirm That the Refuse Billing 

Rate Is a Property Tax 

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal confirm that the City of Port Huron’s Refuse 

Billing Rate is a property tax, nota fee, so that the 100 percent Disabled Veteran's Exemption 

under MCL 211.7b can be properly applied. 

The record shows: 

1. The charge appears on the property-tax bill, not on a separate utility invoice like the City’s 

water and sewer bills. 

2. On that bill it is labeled “Refuse Billing Rate,” not “fee.” 

3. 

li replaced a 3-mill refuse tax that was previously covered by the Disabled Veteran's 

Exemption. 

The Michigan Supreme Court already decided in Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998) 

that a charge is a tax in substance when it (1) raises revenue, (2) is mandatory, and (3) funds 

a general public service not tied to individual use. 

The Refuse Billing Rate meets all three Bolt criteria. 

It raises revenue for citywide refuse 

collection, is compulsory for all parcels, and funds a public service provided to the community 

at large. 

Because it functions as a tax, appears on the property-tax bill, and replaced a prior ad 

valorem tax, it remains a property tax under Michigan law. 

It therefore falls within the 

property-tax laws of this state and must be covered by the Disabled Veteran's Exemption 

under MCL 211.7b.

Page 2

a5 - 00282[

2. The Tribunal Decided the Central Bolt Issue Without a Hearing

The Tribunal decided that the Refuse Billing Rate “is not a tax levied under Michigan's

property tax laws” without holding a hearing or allowing Petitioner to present evidence or

argument. That determination resolved the central Bolt question —the classification of the

charge— without due process.

Whether the charge is a tax or a fee is a question of property-tax law within the Tribunal’s

jurisdiction under MCL 205.731(a)—{b). The Tribunal cannot dismiss for lack of jurisdiction by

assuming the very conclusion that defines its jurisdiction.

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal reconsider and decide this issue on the

merits, applying the Bolt test to the record evidence and, if necessary, allowing further factual

development.

3. Petitioner Satisfied the Default and Filing Requirements

Petitioner timely cured the September 9, 2025 Order of Default by:

1. Filing the correct petition: Form TT-262 (General Property Tax — Small Claims Petition) as

an Amended Petition under the existing docket.

2. Providing the assessor's final decision: the Tax Assessor's written email confirming that the

parcel’s Disabled Veteran's Exemption was granted but would not be applied to the Refuse

Billing Rate and would not be sent to the Board of Review. This email was uploaded as a

separate document with the original petition and is already in the record.

3. Attaching the property-tax bill showing the disputed charge.

That email constitutes the “notice giving rise to the appeal” required by TTR 279. The City

issues no formal denial form for this type of determination. Petitioner therefore satisfied the

notice requirement.

Form version note. The Amended Petition was filed using the current TT-262 downloaded

directly from the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s website. Any reference in the dismissal order to an

“outdated” form appears to be a clerical error.

4. Palpable Error and Manifest Injustice

This motion meets the standard for reconsideration under TTR 261.

The Tribunal committed a palpable error of law and fact by misunderstanding the issue and by

deciding, without a hearing, that the Refuse Billing Rate was a “fee” rather than applying Bolt.

Petitioner is not asking for new law —the Michigan Supreme Court in Bolt has already held

Page 3

A5-002¢2(, 

This clarification will also promote consistent treatment of similar mandatory charges 

appearing on property-tax bills for other homeowners, including those with principal-residence 

exemptions, ensuring the law is applied uniformly. 

5. Requested Relief 

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 

1. Vacate the Order of Dismissal entered October 10, 2025; 

2. Reinstate this case to the active docket; and 

3. Confirm, consistent with Bolt v City of Lansing and MCL 211.7b, that the City’s Refuse 

Billing Rate — and any similar mandatory flat charge piaced on the property-tax bill that meets 

the Boit criteria — is a property tax under Michigan law and therefore fully exempt under the 

Disabled Veteran's Exemption. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Marion A. Mills, Petitioner 

2712 Military Street 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

Date: 

(0-12-25 

Virus oA 

J AA 

L 

Veronica Steele, Authorized Representative 

2712 Military Street 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

Date: 

Oct. 13, 20a%

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

Marion A. Mills, Petitioner 

Vv. 

City of Port Huron, Respondent 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

{ certify that on 

, 2025, 

| served a copy of the Motion for 

Reconsideration by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Angela Swoffer, City Assessor 

City of

Page 5

orc

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.

25-002826_Recon deny.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

Marion A Mills,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

City of Port Huron,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Marcus L. Abood

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On October 14, 2025, Petitioner filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal reconsider

the Order of Dismissal entered in this case on October 10, 2025. In the motion,

Petitioner states that Tribunal committed a palpable error by finding, without a hearing,

that the Refuse Billing Rate was not a tax rather than a fee. Petitioner argues that,

unlike Respondent’s water and sewer bills, the charge at issue in this case appears on

Petitoiner’s property tax bill. On the property tax bill for the subject property, the charge

is listed as "Refuse Billing Rate," and is not described as a fee. The charge replaced a

3-mill refuse tax that Petitioner did not have to pay previously because this millage is

exempted based on the Disabled Veteran's Exemption applied to the subject property.

In further support, Petitioner cites Bolt v City of Lansing1 as establishing the test for

whether it is a charge or a tax. According to Petitioner, the Refuse Billing Rate at issue

in this case meets all three of the criteria set forth in Bolt. Because the Refuse Billing

Rate functions as a tax, it should have been considered a property tax under Michigan

law and exempted by the Disabled Veteran’s Exemption applied to the subject property.

Therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the above-referenced appeal.

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

merely restating the arguments and evidence previously presented. Procedurally, the

Order of Dismissal stated that “Petitioner was held in default on September 9, 2025,

because Petitioner filed the wrong petition for the issue under appeal and failed to file a

copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. Disabled Veterans Exemption denial

notice.” The Order of Dismissal also noted that, while Petitioner attempted to cure the

default on September 12, 2025, the attempt was incomplete in as much as Petitioner

filed an outdated petition and did not include a copy of the formal denial notice. Despite

Petitioner’s assertions to the contrary, Petitioner did not file an updated petition form.

Instead, the form that was submitted indicated it was revised in February 2010, and

contained references to the Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth, a

department within the executive branch that has not existed since 2011.2 The amended

petition form also included a non-working telephone number rather than the Tribunal’s

1 Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998).

2 2011, E.R.O. No. 2011-4, Eff. Apr. 25, 2011

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

Page 2 of 3 

 

correct telephone number. Although Petitioner indicated that the form utilized is 

available on the Tribunal’s website, Petitioner is incorrect in such an assertion. 

 

Furthermore, MCL 205.731(a) states that the Tribunal has exclusive and original 

jurisdiction over “[a] proceeding 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.” TTR 

279(3) provides that, “[f]or property tax contested cases, a copy of the notice giving rise 

to the appeal, including, but not limited to, notice of board of review action, notice of 

taxable value uncapping, or notice denying a principal residence exemption, must be 

submitted with the petition.” Although Petitioner acknowledged providing an email from 

the assessor, the email itself only provided certain background information about the 

requests submitted to the July Board of Review and confirmed that Petitioner received 

an exemption under MCL 211.7b going back to 2019. The email itself did not indicate it 

was a denial, reference Petitioner’s appeal rights, or otherwise indicate that the email 

constituted a final determination as to Petitioner’s claims. Thus, Petitioner failed to cure 

the default as directed. 

 

Even if, as asserted by Petitioner, the charge at issue should be considered a tax under 

Bolt v City of Lansing, the Order of Dismissal recognized that Petitioner did not appear 

before a Board of Review to protest the charge….” Here, a protest to the Board of 

Review is a prerequisite to invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a. A 

final decision of the BOR is a prerequisite for invoking the Tribunal’s jurisdiction,3 and 

Petitioner’s failure to complete the prerequisite step is a failure to invoke the Tribunal’s 

statutory jurisdiction over this proceeding.4 In Sixarp, the Michigan Supreme Court 

reiterated previous appellate decisions in its reasoning that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is 

statutory by nature. The Court stated: 

 

MCL 205.735a(3) “is not a notice statute, but is a jurisdictional statute that 

governs when and how a petitioner invokes the Tax Tribunal’s jurisdiction.” 

We therefore overrule Parkview5 to the

Page 3

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.

25-002826.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

DEC 08 2025 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

) 

Marion A. Mills, Petitioner 

V. 

City of Port Huron, Respondent 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

| certify that on 

Oak. 1d 

, 2025, 

| served a copy of the Motion for 

Reconsideration by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Angela Swoffer, City Assessor 

City of Port Huron 

100 McMorran Blvd 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

wa 

Signature (Petitiéner or Authorized Representative)

Page 2

Fo Narion 

ATS 

agg 

pal 

"Us. POSTAGE P

A712 

mu itary 

gr 

og 

: 4 

ws 

aRaTIOT 

f 

A, 

Ae 

t 

CE 

hen 

on 

FORT 

’ 

ov 

+ H wran, vy 

. 

RY 

a 

of B= 

OCT 27, 2025 

I 

UYUToeo 

pe 

j 

wt 

$10.90 

FF 

§ 

g 

5 

0 Lb 0.30 Oz 

$2322W501614-7 

3 

§ 

8 

a 

PoE 

il 

Tn 

if Le > 

Michigan 

Tax Tribunal 

Be 

8 

SRI 

PO. 

Boy 

30323 

_— 

SER S 

Fy. 

| 

EXPECTED DELIVERY DAY: 10/30/25

wv 

la 

§ie3 

Lansing 

, 

MM 

ae 

USPS TRACKING® # 

A m 

—~ 

a 

~ 

3 

| ve] 

HR G08 

3 IRE] 

Cl 

| 

q 

| 

I 

9505 5134 6701 5300 0070 47 

PoAlBoay

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.

25-002826 NNA for dated POS.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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 

Marion A Mills, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

 

 

 

 

City of Port Huron, 

 

Respondent. 

 

NOTICE OF NO ACTION 

 

Petitioner has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. However, the submitted proof of 

service of the motion is not dated. As such, a revised proof of service indicating the 

date the motion was served on the opposing party must be submitted within 14 days of 

the entry of this order.1 Tribunal rules and information on pleadings can be found on 

our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib. 

 

 

Entered: October 23, 2025 

 

 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk 

cs 

 

 

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 See, TTR 227(12).

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.

25-002826.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

TUNNE™ 

xvi 

Cw 

Co 

08190 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

0] 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

RECEIVED 

OCT 2 0 2025 

Marion A. Milis, Petitioner 

v. 

City of Port Huron, Respondent 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

Presiding Judge: Patricia L. Halm 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

1. Reason for Reconsideration — The Tribunal Should Confirm That the Refuse Billing 

Rate Is a Property Tax 

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal confirm that the City of Port Huron’s Refuse 

Billing Rate is a property tax, nota fee, so that the 100 percent Disabled Veteran's Exemption 

under MCL 211.7b can be properly applied. 

The record shows: 

1. The charge appears on the property-tax bill, not on a separate utility invoice like the City’s 

water and sewer bills. 

2. On that bill it is labeled “Refuse Billing Rate,” not “fee.” 

3. 

li replaced a 3-mill refuse tax that was previously covered by the Disabled Veteran's 

Exemption. 

The Michigan Supreme Court already decided in Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998) 

that a charge is a tax in substance when it (1) raises revenue, (2) is mandatory, and (3) funds 

a general public service not tied to individual use. 

The Refuse Billing Rate meets all three Bolt criteria. 

It raises revenue for citywide refuse 

collection, is compulsory for all parcels, and funds a public service provided to the community 

at large. 

Because it functions as a tax, appears on the property-tax bill, and replaced a prior ad 

valorem tax, it remains a property tax under Michigan law. 

It therefore falls within the 

property-tax laws of this state and must be covered by the Disabled Veteran's Exemption 

under MCL 211.7b.

Page 2

a5 - 00282[

2. The Tribunal Decided the Central Bolt Issue Without a Hearing

The Tribunal decided that the Refuse Billing Rate “is not a tax levied under Michigan's

property tax laws” without holding a hearing or allowing Petitioner to present evidence or

argument. That determination resolved the central Bolt question —the classification of the

charge— without due process.

Whether the charge is a tax or a fee is a question of property-tax law within the Tribunal’s

jurisdiction under MCL 205.731(a)—{b). The Tribunal cannot dismiss for lack of jurisdiction by

assuming the very conclusion that defines its jurisdiction.

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal reconsider and decide this issue on the

merits, applying the Bolt test to the record evidence and, if necessary, allowing further factual

development.

3. Petitioner Satisfied the Default and Filing Requirements

Petitioner timely cured the September 9, 2025 Order of Default by:

1. Filing the correct petition: Form TT-262 (General Property Tax — Small Claims Petition) as

an Amended Petition under the existing docket.

2. Providing the assessor's final decision: the Tax Assessor's written email confirming that the

parcel’s Disabled Veteran's Exemption was granted but would not be applied to the Refuse

Billing Rate and would not be sent to the Board of Review. This email was uploaded as a

separate document with the original petition and is already in the record.

3. Attaching the property-tax bill showing the disputed charge.

That email constitutes the “notice giving rise to the appeal” required by TTR 279. The City

issues no formal denial form for this type of determination. Petitioner therefore satisfied the

notice requirement.

Form version note. The Amended Petition was filed using the current TT-262 downloaded

directly from the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s website. Any reference in the dismissal order to an

“outdated” form appears to be a clerical error.

4. Palpable Error and Manifest Injustice

This motion meets the standard for reconsideration under TTR 261.

The Tribunal committed a palpable error of law and fact by misunderstanding the issue and by

deciding, without a hearing, that the Refuse Billing Rate was a “fee” rather than applying Bolt.

Petitioner is not asking for new law —the Michigan Supreme Court in Bolt has already held

Page 3

A5-002¢2(, 

This clarification will also promote consistent treatment of similar mandatory charges 

appearing on property-tax bills for other homeowners, including those with principal-residence 

exemptions, ensuring the law is applied uniformly. 

5. Requested Relief 

Petitioner respectfully requests that the Tribunal: 

1. Vacate the Order of Dismissal entered October 10, 2025; 

2. Reinstate this case to the active docket; and 

3. Confirm, consistent with Bolt v City of Lansing and MCL 211.7b, that the City’s Refuse 

Billing Rate — and any similar mandatory flat charge piaced on the property-tax bill that meets 

the Boit criteria — is a property tax under Michigan law and therefore fully exempt under the 

Disabled Veteran's Exemption. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Marion A. Mills, Petitioner 

2712 Military Street 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

Date: 

(0-12-25 

Virus oA 

J AA 

L 

Veronica Steele, Authorized Representative 

2712 Military Street 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

Date: 

Oct. 13, 20a%

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL — SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

Marion A. Mills, Petitioner 

Vv. 

City of Port Huron, Respondent 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

{ certify that on 

, 2025, 

| served a copy of the Motion for 

Reconsideration by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Angela Swoffer, City Assessor 

City of

Page 5

orc

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.

25-002826.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

Marion A Mills,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

City of Port Huron,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that Petitioner was held in

default on September 9, 2025, because Petitioner filed the wrong petition for the issue

under appeal and failed to file a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. Disabled

Veterans Exemption denial notice. On September 12, 2025, Petitioner filed a response

to the Order of Default; however, their attempt to cure was incomplete. While Petitioner

filed an amended petition, the petition filed was outdated, and although Petitioner

indicated that they included a copy of the denial notice, no formal denial notice was

submitted.

The Tribunal finds it has no authority over Petitioner’s appeal. The pleadings and

accompanying documentation indicate that Petitioner is appealing “refuse charges on

[Petitioner’s] 2023-2025 tax bills.” This type of appeal does not fall within the Tribunal’s

subject-matter jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s authority is limited to (1) “a proceeding 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,” (2) “a proceeding for a refund

or redetermination of a tax levied under the property tax laws of this state,” and (3) “any

other proceeding provided by law.”1 [Emphasis added.] In this case, Respondent

seeks to collect the refuse fee charged to the subject property via Petitioner’s property

tax bill; however, the refuse fee is not a tax levied under Michigan’s property tax laws.2

Thus, had Petitioner appealed to Respondent’s July Board of Review, the Board of

Review would have had no authority to consider Petitioner’s appeal. Further, MCL

211.7b only exempts a disabled veteran’s homestead from property taxes. Charges

related to refuse, recycling, and leaf collection are not property taxes and do not fall

within the Tribunal’s subject matter jurisdiction. No law grants the Tribunal jurisdiction

over the instant appeal, and “a court which has determined that it has no jurisdiction

should not proceed further except to dismiss the action.”3 Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED.

1 MCL 205.731(a), (b), and (e).

2 See MCL 211.1 et seq.

3 Fox v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243; 134 NW2d 146 (1985).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

Page 2 of 2

This order resolves all pending claims in this matter and closes this 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 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: October 10, 2025

By _____________________________

kac/gc

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.

Amended Petition.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

September 12, 2025 

Amended Petition Filing 

MTT Docket No. 25-002826 

To the Clerk of the Tribunal: 

Pursuant to the Tribunal’s September 9, 2025 Order of Default, 

am submitting the attached 

Amended General Property Tax — Small Claims Petition to cure the deficiencies noted. 

* 

Correct Petition Form: The amended petition is filed under the General Property Tax 

category, rather than the PRE/Qualified Agricultural Exemption form previously 

submitted. 

* 

 Notice/Decision: I am attaching the Assessor’s denial email regarding the application of 

my exemption to the refuse charge. 

* 

Tax Bill: 

I am also attaching a copy of my tax bill showing the disputed refuse charge, 

which is the basis of this appeal. 

These attachments demonstrate both the decision giving rise to this appeal and the nature of the 

disputed charge. 

I respectfully request that this amended filing cure the default and that my case proceed under the 

above-referenced docket number. 

Sincerely, 

Marion Adam Mills

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LABOR &

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL

DOCKET NUMBER

ECONOMIC GROWTH

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

PETITION FORM

25-002826

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

- AMENDED PETITION -

Failure to complete this form, including signature, and return it by the due date will result in this case being dismissed.

If additional space is needed, please use a separate sheet of paper.

See Line by Line Instructions on the back of the Cover Letter.

1. Petitioner(s) Name and Address

2. Agent or Attorney (if any) Name and Address

Marion Adam Mills

Veronica Steele (my wife)

2712 Military Street

Port Huron, Michigan 48060

Petitioner's daytime Phone No. _530-683-5170

Agent/Attorney daytime Phone No. _810-990-6070

3. Provide the Property Classification (Residential, agricultural, personal, commercial, industrial, etc.): Residential

4. Location of Property:

SELECT ONE:

County

_St. Clair

City

of Port Huron

Township

5. Did Petitioner protest to the Board of Review?

Yes ©

No ®

(Reason attached separately )

If no, check all applicable reasons below and explain on separate sheet of paper, if necessary. Provide a copy of the documents from which you

are appealing, including the Notice of Assessment and the Board of Review decision, etc.

[CJ The Assessment Change Notice was not properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March Board of Review.

Od Petitioner is appealing within 35 days of issuance of notice of action taken by July or December Board of Review.

| Petitioner is appealing a Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact.

[J Petitioner is appealing within 35 days of issuance of a State Tax Commission Order.

O Petitioner is appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Taxable Value Uncapping.

6. Did Petitioner request a Poverty/Hardship Exemption at the Board of Review?

Yes [@)

No ©®

Attach a copy of the Board's Denial, if available.

7. Check which of the following are being appealed. (See Instructions)

[1 The property's true cash value and taxable value are incorrect.

O The property's taxable value only was calculated incorrectly.

[| There was an addition or loss to the property and the value is incorrect.

[C1 The uncapping of the property's taxable value is improper.

v4) The denial of a property tax exemption. (Do not use this form to appeal a denial of a principal residence or qualified agricultural exemption.)

[] The denial of a hardship/poverty exemption.

Parcel # 1

Parcel # 2 (must adjoin Parcel # 1)

a. Parcel Number (Property Identification Number) of property

being appealed.

06-222-0004-000

b. Tax Year being appealed.

c. State Equalized Value (or Assessed Value) from either the

Assessment Change Notice or the Board of Review Action Notice

d. Taxable Value

Not in dispute — appeal concerns application of exemption to refuselrecycling charge

from either the Assessment Change Notice or the Board of

Review Action Notice

Parcel # 1

Parcel # 2

a. What do you think this property is worth (its fair market

value)?

b. Divide your fair market value by 2 to determine your belief of

the State Equalized Value. (Not applicable for taxable value

only appeals)

c. Provide Petitioner's contention of Taxable Value, if known.

Page 3

10. 

Explain the reason for this appeal. 

( see attached statement ) 

11. Does this property have a principal residence exemption (PRE) of at least 50% for the tax year(s) at issue? 

® Yes. A fee is NOT required for the filing of this appeal if the property has a PRE of at least 50% for the tax years at issue. 

O 

No. 

A fee IS required for the filing of the appeal. (See Fee Schedule below.) 

Make your check payable to State of Michigan. 

Failure to remit the required fee with this form may result in dismissal of this appeal. 

Amount Paid: 

The fee is based on the SEV or TV Value in Contention, whichever is 

* Value in contention is the difference between the state equalized value as 

greater.* 

determined from the assessment and the state equalized value contended 

by the petitioner OR the difference between the taxable value as determined 

If the value in contention is: 

Filing Fee is: 

from the assessment and the taxable value contended by the petitioner, 

$100,000.00 and under 

$125.00 

WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 

$200.00 

Over $500,000.00 

$300.00 

** If you are appealing more than one parcel, the parcels must be

Page 4

Ame

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.

SC_Order_of_Default_of_Petition.2025-09-09_16-18-42.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

Marion A Mills,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

City Of Port Huron,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within

14 days of the entry of this order.

Furthermore, Petitioner filed the wrong petition for the issue being appealed. See TTR

279. As such, the petition is not properly pending. Petitioner must complete and return

the appropriate petition for the issue being appealed within 14 days of the entry of this

order. The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal and if filed

utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, must be filed on the assigned docket number as

an “amended petition.” Small Claims petition forms can be found on our website at

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.i

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).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 9, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

Page 2 of 4

By: Tribunal Clerk

i “A submission by mail is considered filed on the date indicated by the United States Postal Service 

postmark on the envelope containing the submission. A submission without a postmark or with an illegible 

postmark is considered filed on the date the submission is received by the tribunal. A submission by 

commercial delivery service is considered filed on the date the submission is given to the commercial 

service for delivery to the tribunal as indicated by the receipt date on the package containing the 

submission. A submission by personal service is considered filed on the date the submission is received. 

A submission through the tribunal’s e-filing system by 11:59 p.m. on a business day is considered filed on 

that business day. A submission by email to the email address designated by the tribunal by 11:59 p.m. 

on a business day is considered filed on that business day. A submission on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a 

holiday is considered filed on the following business day, as provided by section 35a of the tax tribunal 

act, MCL 205.735a.” TTR 225(5)

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

Marion A Mills,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

City Of Port Huron,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Petitioner did not submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., notice of

action taken by Board of Review, uncapping notice, PRE denial notice, final assessment

notice, etc.), as required by TTR 279. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within

14 days of the entry of this order.

Furthermore, Petitioner filed the wrong petition for the issue being appealed. See TTR

279. As such, the petition is not properly pending. Petitioner must complete and return

the appropriate petition for the issue being appealed within 14 days of the entry of this

order. The petition shall note the docket number assigned by the Tribunal and if filed

utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, must be filed on the assigned docket number as

an “amended petition.” Small Claims petition forms can be found on our website at

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is HELD IN DEFAULT.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defaulted party shall cure the default, as indicated

above, within 14 days of the entry of this order.ii

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).

By:_______________________________

Entered: September 9, 2025

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

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.

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 25-002826

Page 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.

02._Property_Tax_Appeal_Petition_Form_Principal_Residence_Qualified_Agricultural_Exemption.4f408c27-ecd5-47aa-9ec5-da2e70dd2444.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION / QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION

MOAHR DOCKET NO.

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. Notice of Denial or

Board of Review Decision) with this Small Claims Petition, if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be placed in default.

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type: Individual

First Name

Marion

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Mills

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

2712 Military St

City or Town

Port Huron

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48060

Telephone Number

5306835170

Fax Number

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

marion.adam.mills@gmail.com

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

First Name

Veronica

M.I.

Last Name

Steele

Firm Name (if any)

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

2712 Military Street

City or Town

Port Huron

State

Michigan

ZIP Code

48060

Telephone Number

810-990-6070

Fax Number

E-mail Address

veronica.steele.mobile@gmail.com

Section 3: Subject Property Information

Parcel Identification Number:

06-222-0004-000

How many parcels are you appealing?

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? If yes, use the attached multiple parcel

form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. If no, you must file separate appeals for each non-

contiguous or non-adjoining parcels or you will be defaulted.

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

2712 Military St

Port Huron

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

ORLENE HAWKS

DIRECTOR

Michigan

48060

Taxing Authority:

City Of Port Huron (SAINT CLAIR)

County:

Saint Clair

Classification of Property:

Real

Residential

Section 4: Check which of the following you are appealing

Principal Residence Exemption

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

I’m appealing the City of Port Huron’s denial of a full property tax exemption under MCL 211.7b for refuse charges on my 2023–2025 tax bills. In July 2023, the City

replaced a 3-mill ad valorem tax for refuse collection (which was previously exempt under the disabled veteran exemption) with a mandatory “flat billing rate” that,

according to city records, was intended to raise additional revenue. This charge:

- Is collected through the property tax bill on a parcel otherwise fully exempt from all property taxes,

- Was not enacted through any lawful special assessment process (there was no special assessment roll, no notice, no apportionment, and no individualized benefit),

- Is not labeled as a special assessment on the tax bill or in City Resolution #23-082, which refers to it only as a “billing rate,” and

- Is compulsory, not usage-based, and funds a general public service.

Under BOLT v. CITY OF LANSING, such charges are deemed taxes in substance, regardless of how they are labeled, when they are (1) imposed to raise revenue, (2)

mandatory, and (3) fund public services unrelated to individual use. This charge meets all three criteria.

Although I did not receive a formal Notice of Denial, I am attaching the email response from the City’s Tax Assessor, which constitutes her decision. The Tax

Assessor declined to submit the matter to the Board of Review, asserting that the charges did not qualify for correction under MCL 211.53b. This appeal is therefore

necessary to preserve my rights and seek a proper legal determination under BOLT v. CITY OF LANSING.

I recognize that the Michigan Department of Treasury’s publicly posted FAQs state that the exemption under MCL 211.7b “applies to taxes levied under the General

Property Tax Act only,” and that “special assessments and user fees imposed under separate statutory authority are not exempt.” However, this is merely Treasury’s

administrative interpretation. It is not binding, nor does it override Michigan Supreme Court precedent. BOLT remains controlling law on how to determine whether a

charge is truly a fee or a tax.

In addition, the City has recently applied similar schemes for services such as leaf and recycling collection by removing them from millage and imposing them as

separate flat charges instead. For example, flat fees for these services appeared in 2020 and 2022, even though they had previously been covered under property tax

millage and were thus exempt. This pattern has deprived me (and many residents) of the full benefit of the exemption provided by law.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the Tribunal find that the refuse charge remains a tax under the General Property Tax Act and is fully exempt under MCL 211.7b.

Note: I received a server error while attempting to upload the Notice of Denial (168kb), even though it is within the file size limit. I will upload it separately or

provide it by alternate means if necessary.

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues

List the year(s) denied:

2023 2024 2025

Indicate who denied the exemption under appeal:

Local Unit

If you checked “other” above, explain:

List the date the Principal Residence Exemption or Qualified Agricultural Exemption was denied:

July 22, 2025

Fee Information

A fee of $25.00

Page 3

ST

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.

Request for Exemption and Notice of Denial.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

From: Veronica Steele veronica.steele@rocketmail.com

Subject: Request for Exemption Determination (MCL 211.7b) and Submission to Board of Review

Date: July 1, 2025 at 3:22 PM

To: Angela Swoffer swoffera@porthuron.org

Dear Ms. Swoffer,

Thank you again for your previous correspondence regarding the refuse, recycling and leaf collection charges applied to our property at

 2712 Military Street. The property is approved for a 100% property tax exemption under the Disabled Veteran’s Exemption (MCL 

211.7b).

Request for Qualiﬁed Error Correction – Board of Review Submission (2020–2024 Tax Years)

We’re requesting the following written statement be forwarded to the July 22, 2025 Board of Review for inclusion in the meeting packet. 

This request seeks correction of a qualiﬁed error under MCL 211.53b for prior years in which charges were improperly applied to a fully 

exempt parcel.

Please conﬁrm that the statement below has been received and will be forwarded to the Board of Review. We ARE able to attend the July 

22 meeting in person if required, but not any of the earlier meeting times due to a family reunion out of town. We will remain available for 

questions or documentation if needed. Just email us.

Thank you again for your assistance in these matters. Please conﬁrm once our request has been submitted to the Board of Review for their 

consideration and let us know what time and where the July 22 meeting will be held.

Sincerely,

Veronica Steele & Marion Adam Mills

2712 Military Street

June 27, 2025

To the Honorable Members of the Board of Review:

We respectfully request that you correct a qualiﬁed error under MCL 211.53b for the tax years 2020 through 2024, related to refuse, 

recycling, and leaf collection charges applied to our property at 2712 Military Street, which is and has been fully exempt under the

 Disabled Veteran’s Exemption.

Background:

Until 2023, refuse services were funded by a 3-mill property tax, from which this parcel was fully exempt.

In June 2023, City Council passed Resolution #23-082, discontinuing the millage and replacing it with a ﬂat $285 fee per 

residential parcel, to be added to the tax bill. This charge is now applied even to fully exempt properties.

Additionally, beginning in 2021, a $25 “leaf and recycling” fee was added via Resolution #20-043, adopted in May 2020 without 

special assessment procedures.

In 2023, recycling was moved from the $25 fee into the new $285 charge, but the $25 fee remains in place, resulting in 

potential double billing for the recycling.

The total charge now billed to our exempt parcel is approximately $310–$312 annually, despite the exemption. These fees:

Were not approved by voters,

Were not structured through any formal Special Assessment District (SAD),

And do not meet the constitutional standards outlined in Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998), which requires:

1. Voluntariness

2. Proportionality to use

3. Strict cost-basis justiﬁcation

Legal & Procedural Defects:

The refuse and leaf fees are mandatory, not based on use, and have no published cost analysis.

No SAD process was followed (no notice, roll, apportionment, or individualized beneﬁt).

Page 2

The charges are being collected via the tax bill, on a parcel otherwise exempt from all property taxes.

The City claims these are “special assessments,” yet neither the tax bill nor the approving resolutions describe them as such. 

In fact, Resolution #23-082 expressly refers to the charge as a “billing rate”, not a lawful special assessment.

We understand the $25 leaf and recycling fee originated in May 2020 under Resolution #20-043, and began appearing on our 2021 winter 

tax bill. That resolution likewise did not establish a special assessment district and offered no cost apportionment or proportionality. When 

recycling was later included in the 2023 $285 refuse charge, but the $25 fee continued, it effectively resulted in double billing for the same 

service.

Request for Relief:

I respectfully ask the Board to:

Remove all refuse, recycling, and leaf-related charges from the 2020–2024 tax rolls for our property, and

Correct this as a qualiﬁed error under your authority in MCL 211.53b.

Thank you for your consideration, and for your role in upholding legal and constitutional integrity in local tax administration.

Sincerely,

Veronica Steele & Marion Adam Mills

2712 Military Street

Page 3

From: Swoffer, Angela swoffera@porthuron.org

Subject: RE: Request for Exemption Determination (MCL 211.7b) and Submission to Board of Review

Date: July 22, 2025 at 2:48 PM

To: Veronica Steele veronica.steele@rocketmail.com

Cc: Allen Francis tfrancis@ﬂetcherfealko.com, Ward, Lee wardlee@porthuron.org

Good afternoon,

Our July Board of Review does not have a “hearing” like our March Board of Review with

allotted times for tax payers to come in and dispute. So you were never going to receive a

hearing notice or written response before the Board date in regards to this. As stated by my

response in previous emails, the City Treasure response in his email, the trash is not a tax.

The disabled veteran exemption is exempt from property taxes. The trash fee is still a

required payment. As stated by our City Attorney, that was speaking on behave of myself,

that this is not a qualiﬁed error for the July Board of Review to make a decision on.  Please

see below State guidelines on what the July Board of Review can approve or deny. This

situation does not fall under any of these

Page 4

The