Robert Baryo, Petitioner V City Of Davison, 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 

Robert Baryo, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003752 

 

City of Davison, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

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

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

23-000482 on October 11, 2024. Petitioner was ordered to file a severed docket 

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

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

Petitioner in default. Petitioner was given an additional 14 days to cure the default, and 

they did not respond. Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the latter stated 

that failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this case. 

 

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

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

are: 

 

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

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

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

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

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

serve the interests of justice.2 

 

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

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

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

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

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

case. Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. 

 

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

 

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

2 Id. at 149.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003752 

Page 2 of 2 

 

APPEAL RIGHTS 

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

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

Appeals. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arguments unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal. 

 

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

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

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

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

record on appeal. There is no certification fee. 

 

 

Entered: February 13, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

 

 

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

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

Robert Baryo, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003752 

 

City of Davison, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT 

 

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

above-captioned docket from docket number 23-000482 on October 11, 2024. The 

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

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

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

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

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

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

timely comply with this order.1 Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT. 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

Entered: January 14, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

bw 

 

 

 

 

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

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

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003752 

Page 2 of 2 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

GOVERNOR 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR 

 

 

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

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

Robert Baryo, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

 

MTT Docket No. 23-000482 & 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24-003752 

 

City of Davison, 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Perry 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-003752 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic Hearing 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

April 8, 2024 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Robert Baryo 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: David McArthur 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner was required to protest the subject property’s assessment to the Board of 

Review (BOR). Petitioner protested the subject property’s assessment to the 2023 

March BOR. 

 

Petitioner filed a Petition with the Tribunal on April 3, 2023, and Respondent filed an 

Answer on April 27, 2023. Following the September 12, 2023 hearing held in this 

matter, the Tribunal issued an Order of Rehearing on December 6, 2023, which 

provided that “the ALJ considered the testimony and evidence submitted and made 

specific findings of fact but could not make value conclusions for the tax years at issue. 

The ALJ noted that neither Petitioner nor Respondent provided sufficient testimonial or 

documentary evidence to allow the Tribunal to make an independent determination of 

value.” As a result, a rehearing in this matter was scheduled for April 8, 2024. 

 

The amount of the State Equalized Value (SEV) or Taxable Value (TV) in dispute, as 

set forth in the pleadings, for all tax years at issue is within the jurisdictional limits of the 

Small Claims Division.1 Further, the property’s assessment for subsequent tax years is 

included in this proceeding.2 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 23-000482 & 24-003752 

Page 2 of 9 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

1. Whether the subject property is assessed in excess of 50% of its true cash value 

(TCV). 

 

“The petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing the true cash value of the 

property.”3 

 

The assessment of real property in Michigan shall not exceed 50% of its TCV.4 “True 

cash value” means “the usual selling price . . . .”5 “True cash value” means “fair market 

value.”6 

 

The Tribunal is required to make an independent determination of TCV.7 “[T]he tribunal 

is not bound to accept either of the parties’ theories of valuation. It may accept one 

theory and reject the other, it may reject both theories, or it may utilize a combination of 

both in arriving at its determination.”8 

 

The Tribunal is required to select the valuation methodology that is accurate and bears 

a reasonable relationship to the property’s TCV.9 

 

2. Whether the TV exceeds the amount provided by MCL 211.27a. 

 

MCL 211.27a provides that a property’s TV is the lesser of the property’s SEV or 

capped TV, and a property’s capped TV is, absent a transfer of ownership, determined 

mathematically by taking into consideration the prior tax year’s TV, statutory losses, the 

lesser of the rate of inflation or 5%, and statutory additions, including omitted property 

(i.e., property not previously assessed).10 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 25-52-03-553-001 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$170,000

$85,000

$85,000

2024

$180,000

$90,000

$90,000

 

3 MCL 205.737(3); see also Kern v Pontiac Twp, 93 Mich App 612, 620; 287 NW2d 603 (1979). 

4 Michigan Const 1963, art IX, sec 3. 

5 MCL 211.27(1). 

6 CAF Investment Co v State Tax Comm, 392 Mich 442, 450; 221 NW2d 588 (1974). 

7 See Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). 

8 Id. at 356. 

9 See Safran Printing Co v Detroit, 88 Mich App 376; 276 NW2d 602 (1979). 

10 See MCL 211.34d.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 23-000482 & 24-003752 

Page 3 of 9 

 

Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 

 

1. Evidence, filed on April 5, 2023 

a. 2023 BOR decision. 

2. Evidence, filed on October 16, 2023 

a. Appraisal. 

 

No evidence was excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends 

that Petitioner built a garage to replace an existing building on the subject property. 

Petitioner moved a garage that was stick built with a steel roof, and Respondent raised 

the SEV roughly 25% from $87,807 to $109,200. Petitioner built the new building 

himself with cost being $12,900, meanwhile, the City is valuing it at $40,000. The 

courts have ruled that taxing an individual on unrealized gains is illegal. Since 

Petitioner purchased the subject property in May 2013, the taxes were roughly 3% and 

manageable, but each year they have risen, and each year no new services or 

consideration have been given to Petitioner for the increase in taxes. Petitioner’s home 

was appraised in 2021 at $172,000. It did not go up in actual value more than 25%. 

This is due to a falsely inflated market not value. 

 

At the hearing, Petitioner indicated that his taxes had increased $13,000 based on a 

new building being moved to align with his driveway. Originally, when the City approved 

the building for the previous owners, the City did not approve them to build south of the 

home because it would have resulted in two frontages. In 2022, Petitioner began 

discussing moving the building to another location to make it usable as a garage. 

 

The outbuilding was moved to get it in-line with the property as the subject site is a 

corner lot. According to Petitioner, this resulted in the property being reassessed. 

Petitioner argues that he has no realized gains from

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

MT

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