Michigan

Meredith Ellen Krupic, Petitioner V Township Of Milford, Respondent

Petitioner: Meredith Ellen Krupic
Respondent: Township Of Milford

Case overview

Docket number: 25-003046-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Oakland
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
9	Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	11/17/2025	Not recorded	Download
8	Notice of Filing	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/27/2025	Not recorded	Download
7	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	10/08/2025	Not recorded	Download
6	Order of Partial Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/22/2025	Not recorded	Download
5	Order Extending P's Default	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/22/2025	Not recorded	Download
4	Order of Default of Petitioner	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/26/2025	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	09/26/2025	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number SC	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/26/2025	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	07/31/2025	$125.00	Download

Documents

25-003046 Dismiss (post-default).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

Meredith Ellen Krupic,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003046

Milford Township,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

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

default on September 26, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice

giving rise to the appeal, i.e. Board of Review results. On October 22, 2025, the

Tribunal extended the time for Petitioner to cure the default by an additional 14 days

and they have failed to respond. Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the

latter stated that “failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of the case

. . .” and referenced Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury.1 In Grimm, the Michigan Court of

Appeals summarized factors that the Tribunal should consider before imposing the

sanction of dismissal. Those factors are:

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

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

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

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

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

interests of justice.2

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

deliberate delay. As a result, giving careful consideration to the factors involved and

considering all options in determining what sanction is just and proper, the Tribunal

finds that dismissal is appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not be appropriate in

light of Petitioner’s history of noncompliance in this case.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED.

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

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

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003046 

Page 2 of 2 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

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

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

Appeals. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

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

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

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

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

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: November 17, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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-Notice_of_Filing_of_Answer.2025-10-27_10-47-41.0000.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

Meredith Ellen Krupic,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003046

Township Of Milford,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website.

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

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

documents are public records and will appear for public viewing on the Tax

Docket Lookup. Users who file documents are responsible for ensuring sensitive or

personal identifying information is withheld or redacted. See TTR 209. If a user wishes

to file a document for consideration by the Michigan Tax Tribunal and prevent its

publication on the Tax Docket Lookup, the user MUST file a Motion for Protective Order

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

Order will not be published. Documents filed prior to the issuance of a Protective Order

will be published.

The responsibility for excluding or redacting personal identifying information (PII) from

all documents filed with or offered to the Tribunal rests solely with the parties and

their attorneys. The Tribunal is not responsible for or required to review, redact, or

screen documents at the time of filing for PII whether filed electronically or on paper. A

party, representative, or interested person (i.e. third party not part of an appeal) may

request that the Tribunal redact PII contained in a previously-filed document by

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003046

Page 2 of 6

submitting a Request for Redactions. The Request for Redactions form will be

available on the Entire Tribunal and Small Claims pages of our website.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

NOTE: The parties may not request an informal settlement conference to discuss an

appeal of a principal residence exemption that was denied by either the Michigan

Department of Treasury or a County. Also, state taxes levied by the Michigan

Department of Treasury, such as income taxes, are not subject to the informal

settlement conference process.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation.

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

If you have any questions, please contact the Tribunal by phone at (517) 335-9760 or

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: October 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 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

Meredith Ellen Krupic,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 25-003046

Township Of Milford,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the 

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website. 

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small 

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will 

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email 

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of 

the date, time, and location of your

Page 4

MT

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

25-003046.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

0CT 1.3 2025 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

*GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 

| BROWN. DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / EXEMPTION / CLASSIFICATION APPEAL 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-003046 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M.E 

Last Name 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

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

Section 2: Respondent's Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact information 

First Name 

M.L 

Last Name 

Jenny 

Angle 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

1100 Atlantic Street 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Milford 

mi 

45301 

Telephone “048-32 1 = 1 03 1 

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

jangle@milfordtwpmi.gov 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Does the subject properly have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more? 

[ves 

[No 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

if not, list which parcels adjoin one another, 

] Yes 

[| No 

[rv] Not Applicable

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

*GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

The Subject Assessed Value is correctly set at 50% True Cash Value. 

Petitioner did not attend the 2024 March Board of Review. 

Petitioner did attend the 2025 March Board of Review 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

IF PETITIONER 1S APPEALING THE TRUE CASH AND/OR TAXABLE VALUES 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? [|] Yes 

[Hm] No 

If yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: 

March 

[| July 

[m] December 

if no, was the Notice of Assessment properly sent to Petitioner prior to the March BOR? [] Yes 

[I] No 

*Submit a copy of the Notice of Assessment with the Answer. 

If the July or December BOR revised the assessmeni(s) at issue, did it have authority? ] Yes 

[] No 

If yes, cite the Board's authority. 

Was the assessment(s) at issue established as the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact? [| Yes 

No 

if yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a State Tax Commission Order? 

[ml] Yes 

1%; No 

If s0, what is the issue date?

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

*GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Did Petitioner request a Poverty Exemption ata BOR? [| Yes 

[] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: O March 

O 

July 

(| December 

List the date the BOR denied Petitioner’s Poverty Exemption: 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE DENIAL OF AN EXEMPTION 

OTHER THAN POVERTY, PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, OR QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS 

Did Petitioner request the exemption at a BOR? [m] Yes 

[0] No 

If Yes, check which BOR Petitioner attended: [| March 

[J uly 

[] December 

Tax Year(s) denied: 

List the date the exemption was denied: 

What statutory section did Petitioner request the subject property be exempt? 

IF PETITIONER IS APPEALING THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 

What do you believe the classification should be: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Section 6: Valuation Information suse the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Identification Number: 

LM 16-03-479-080 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal 

(check one) 

Agricultural 

Commercial 

Industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check one) 

Current Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) as established by the BOR: 

$123,570 

Current Taxable Value as established by the BOR: 

$123,570 

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

$247,140 

Multiply the True Cash Value by .5 and enter here. This is your contention of Assessed Value. 

$123,570 

If you believe the Taxable Value differs from your contention of Assessed Value, enter your contention of Taxable Value.

Page 4

Pry - 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

 _- 

: 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

. 

GOVERNOR 

: 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

| 

Meredith Ellen Krupic 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

_ Petitioner(s) 

v 

© 

MTT Docket No.25-003046 

“Township of Milford 

) 

Respondent(s) 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Jenny Angle 

: 

states that on 10/7/25 

he/she 

[Name of person serving/mailing petition] 

[date of service] 

served a copy of the Respondent's Answer 

relative to the above-captioned matter upon: 

[Provide name and address of the party/people being served] 

Meredith Krupic 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

670 Village Ln 

| PO Pox 30232 

Milford, MI 48390-1294 

+ Lansing, M 48909 

co 

/ 

LL 

Tr of person who is, serving/mailing copy] 

Jeng 

Foe le 

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

Page 5

Milford Twp-Assessing 

1100 Atlantic St 

Milford, M1 48381 

METROPLEX ML 480 

8 OCT 2025 

PM 17h 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

PO Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909

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.

25-003046 Exd Def PD.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 

Meredith Ellen Krupic, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003046 

 

Milford Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order 

holding Petitioner in default on September 26, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a 

copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. March Board of Review (BOR) Results.1 

Petitioner was required to cure the default by obtaining a copy of those results from 

Respondent and submit them to the Tribunal within 14 days.2 Petitioner has had ample 

time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though the 

Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to 

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

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

comply with this order.3 

 

Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is appealing assessments for the 2024 and 

2025 tax year, and the Tribunal has no authority over the assessment for the 2024 tax 

year under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed. Further, the Tribunal has 

no authority over that assessment, as the facts alleged do not establish that the 

assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, 

typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous 

belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). Rather, the facts alleged indicate 

a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual 

mistake of fact. 

 

Therefore, 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

2 A list of Tribunal rules can be found online, here. 

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003046

Page 2 of 2

default: (1) file a copy of the March BOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default,

(3) pay the $25.00 fee required for the filing of the motion, and (4) file proof the motion

was served on Respondent. The foregoing must be filed with the Tribunal within 14

days of the entry of this order.4

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by

TTR 237.5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s assessment appeal is PARTIALLY

DISMISSED. The appeal shall continue for the 2025 tax year only.

Entered: October 22, 2025

By _____________________________

kac

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

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

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

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

4 “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).

5 See also MCL 205.732.

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.

25-003046 Exd Def PD.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 

Meredith Ellen Krupic, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-003046 

 

Milford Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal has considered the file in this case and finds that it entered an order 

holding Petitioner in default on September 26, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a 

copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal, i.e. March Board of Review (BOR) Results.1 

Petitioner was required to cure the default by obtaining a copy of those results from 

Respondent and submit them to the Tribunal within 14 days.2 Petitioner has had ample 

time to comply, yet has failed to respond or submit the required filings. Though the 

Tribunal finds an extension of time to cure the default appropriate, Petitioner’s failure to 

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

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

comply with this order.3 

 

Further, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner is appealing assessments for the 2024 and 

2025 tax year, and the Tribunal has no authority over the assessment for the 2024 tax 

year under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not timely filed. Further, the Tribunal has 

no authority over that assessment, as the facts alleged do not establish that the 

assessment was the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, 

typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous 

belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). Rather, the facts alleged indicate 

a valuation dispute that does not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual 

mistake of fact. 

 

Therefore, 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

2 A list of Tribunal rules can be found online, here. 

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