Rodney E Drouse, Petitioner V Township Of Garfield, 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 

Rodney E Drouse, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

 

Garfield Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

The Tribunal issued a Proposed Order of Dismissal (POJ) on May 15, 2025. The POJ 

states, in pertinent part, “[t]he parties have 20 days from the ‘Entered’ date below to 

notify the Tribunal in writing, by mail or by electronic filing, if they do not agree with the 

POJ and to state in writing why they do not agree with the POJ (i.e., file exceptions to 

the POJ).” 

 

On June 4, 2025, Petitioner filed exceptions to the POJ. In the exceptions, Petitioner 

claimed the Tribunal should be able to grant the relief requested based on the fact that 

Respondent’s assessor failed to visually inspect the subject property. If an inspection 

had occurred, the property would have remained agricultural and continued to receive 

an agricultural exemption. 

 

Petitioner also disputed the Tribunal’s finding that “[t]he assessor removed the subject’s 

qualified agricultural exemption via a classification change on the 2023 Notice of 

Assessment.” Petitioner alleged that he did not receive the 2023 Notice of Assessment 

or the 2024 Board of Review decision. Petitioner only discovered that the property was 

not exempt after reviewing the 2023 summer tax bill. Petitioner was advised that the 

2023 July Board of Review would not be able to change the assessment, and Petitioner 

would need to seek redress at the 2024 March Board of Review. Petitioner asserts that 

he was only able to obtain a copy of the 2024 Board of Review decision after appearing 

in-person at the Township’s office. After not receiving relief at the 2024 Board of 

Review, Petitioner indicated that he met with the assessor and township supervisor and 

the property’s classification was changed back to agricultural. 

 

Finally, Petitioner believes that they should not be penalized for the assessor’s errors. 

In this case, Respondent was placed in default multiple times and failed to cure the 

defaults, and the POJ found that Petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Additionally, 

Petitioner argues that the evidence shows that the building has electricity, the well does 

not function, and there is no forced air heat. 

 

Respondent has not filed exceptions to the POJ or a response to Petitioner’s 

exceptions.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 2 of 5 

 

The Tribunal has considered the exceptions and the case file and finds that the 

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

submitted in rendering the POJ. The POJ provided the statutory language for MCL 

211.7ee, which indicates that the assessor has the authority to deny a qualified 

agricultural exemption if the assessor determines that the property is not qualified 

agricultural property. The statute only requires that the assessor notify the property 

owner in a manner consistent with MCL 211.24c and does not require that the assessor 

conduct a site inspection prior to denying the exemption request. Moreover, Petitioner 

has not cited any statute, case, or other authority that would support these claims. 

 

Specifically, the POJ stated as follows: 

 

Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony and evidence establishes that the subject 

received the qualified agricultural exemption for many prior years, including 

2022, as a result of its prior classification as agricultural property.1 A denial 

of that exemption status was made by the assessor in the issuance of the 

2023 Notice of Assessment indicating that the property classification 

changed to residential. There was no indication of lack of receipt of that 

notice. The denial comports to the manner required by statute.2 However, 

Petitioner did not appeal the denial to the March BOR as required by 

statute.3 As such, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over tax year 2023. 

 

Even if, as alleged by Petitioner, the 2023

Page 3

MTT

Page 4

MTT

Page 5

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

972 

8081 

48 

9589 0710 

5270 

2 

U.S. Postal Service” 

CERTIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT 

Domestic Mail Only 

gn Mail Fee $4, gs 

[J Return Receipt (hardcopy) 

[J Return Receipt (electronic) 

[J Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 

[J Adult Signature Required 

[J Adult Signature Restricted Deliver 

Postage 

iy 

$0.73 

Extra Services 

& Fees (check box, 

adofqay oYD 

Postmark 

Here 

5 

| 

06/04/2025 

Frid Loh 

ore _— 

/ 

USPS _~ 

See Reverse for Instructions

Page 2

RECEIVED 

Rod Drouse Docket 24-003526 

JUN 09 2025 

File exception to the POJ 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUN, 

AL 

It concerning to the petitioner that the assessor is able to use her computer and change the 

property classification of 20 plus years 4 assessor with no changes to the property and without 

physical viewing the property, this was not her first year of assessing this property which she 

did have classed agricultural in the past. 

After a private meeting with the township supervisor, assessor, and petitioner the assessor 

corrected her error and returns the classification back to agricultural. 

| feel Mr. Wallace should be able to grant the petitioner relief base the fact the assessor failure 

to perform duties and lack visual inspection of the property. if she would have inspected the 

property to start with it would have remained in agricultural exemption and 

i would not have 

gone to March BOR or trial. 

| find it concerning that the petitioner has to pay for the assessor's error. The multiple times 

"the respondent is in default and her error changing property classification, and the Petitioner 

receives no relief. Additionally the respondent failed to cure her default. 

| asked Mr. Wallace if he would like me to clarify anything or had questions for me, he did not. 

Another concern is the Petitioner that, Mr. Wallace states "petitioner did not do so" regarding 

the petitioner was required to submit an application claiming exemption, there was no 

evidence or discussion that Petitioner did not do so. 

Also concerns me that Mr. Wallace states there was no indication of lack of receipt of notice, 

where there was no testamony from the respondent that petitioner was sent or received a 

notice of assessment. 

Concerns the petitioner under FINDING OF Fact Mr. Wallace states the following facts we're 

proving by a prepondence of evidence. #4 the a the assessor removed the subject Qualified 

agricultural exemption via a classification change on the 2023 notice of assessment. The 

respondent is in default and fail to cure it's default. There is no testimony or evidence of the 

2023 notice of assessment that it was sent or received. 

| Rodney E Drouse did not receive My March 2024 border review results. 

| calied the township 

he bor and they inform me the assessor 

( 

i believe

Page 3

out several weeks ago and printed me out a copy of the 2024 march bor decision. 

{ Rodney E Drouse did not receive a 2023 notice of assessment; 

| found out in June 2023 

reviewing my summer taxes. 

| called the assessor thinking it was a clerical error. and could be 

corrected at the June July BOR. She told me that the property did not meet the 50% tillable and 

sent me a letter and picture (exhibit A, A+) 

( one of the obvious areas on A+ to the left or West 

is the 0.21 acres that she said is not agricultural use. It's obviously a drain ditch which has 2 

different culverts for me to access the Northwest corner Of my property, so her calculations 

are off and her findings are in error and should have been thrown out and change back to 

agricultural.) She told me she could not change the assessment and 

i would have to go to the 

march 2024 BOR. Following her directions 

| went to the March BOR 2024. After the 

BOR being frustrated 

| set up a meeting with the township supervisor, assessor and myself. 

after inspecting the Property, the assessor 

corrected her error and returned it back to the 

previous agriculture classification. 

The assessor made the initial error causing this case , 

| would hope Mr. Wallace would grant the 

petitioner relief for the 2023 and 2024 taxes. 

Error regarding Mr. Wallace's statement exhibit 

| showing the building has no electric. The 

building does have electric You can see it 

in the photo. But the well does not function and 

there is no forced air

Page 4

JZ od

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 

 

 

Rodney E Drouse, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

 

Garfield Township, 

 

Case Type: Qualified Agricultural 

 Respondent. 

 

Exemption 

 

 

 

PROPOSED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

Personnel Presiding: 

 

 

Brett Wallace, Administrative Law Judge 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

April 30, 2025 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Rodney Drouse 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Respondent’s assessor denied the QAE in the 2023 Notice of Assessment, Taxable 

Valuation, and Property Classification. Petitioner appealed the denial to the 2024 

March Board of Review (BOR). 

 

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on June 13, 2024, and Respondent did not 

file an answer. 

 

On November 14, 2024, the Tribunal issued an order placing Respondent in default for 

failing to file an answer and extended the time to cure the default on December 23, 

2024. Respondent failed to cure its default; therefore, the Tribunal scheduled and 

conducted a default hearing in this case. 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether the subject property is qualified to receive a QAE 

under MCL 211.7ee. 

 

MCL 211.7ee provides as follows: 

(1) Qualified agricultural property is exempt from the tax levied by a local 

school district for school operating purposes to the extent provided under 

section 1211 of the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1211, 

according to the provisions of this section. . . .

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 2 of 5 

 

(4) For property classified as agricultural, and upon receipt of an affidavit 

filed under subsection (2) for property not classified as agricultural, the 

assessor shall determine if the property is qualified agricultural property 

and if so shall exempt the property from the collection of the tax as 

provided in subsection (1) until December 31 of the year in which the 

property is no longer qualified agricultural property as defined in section 

7dd. An owner is required to file a new claim for exemption on the same 

property as requested by the assessor under subsection (2). . .. 

(7) If the assessor of the local tax collecting unit believes that the property 

for which an exemption has been granted is not qualified agricultural 

property, the assessor may deny or modify an existing exemption by 

notifying the owner in writing at the time required for providing a notice 

under section 24c. A taxpayer may appeal the assessor's determination 

to the board of review meeting under section 30. A decision of the board 

of review may be appealed to the residential and small claims division of 

the Michigan tax tribunal. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1 and 12 of the docket 

maintained in this case.1 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

Based on the pleadings and admitted exhibits, Petitioner contends that the subject 

classification changed from qualified agricultural to residential improved. 

 

Based on sworn testimony, Petitioner contends that they owned this parcel for over 20 

years with four assessors, and it was always classed agricultural. The new assessor 

changed it to residential improved and claimed the tillable acreage was not 50%. 

Petitioner was frustrated because the agricultural use is not based on tillable footage 

but instead on total acreage including rights of ways and other features as 

demonstrated in Exhibit C, page 3, second paragraph. Petitioner alleges the assessor 

improperly determined through use of aerial imagery. Petitioner’s map demonstrates 

the northern part of the property has a power line easement, the southern part has a 

rails to trails easement, and the center has drainage. Each is considered part of the 

acreage. Exhibit B shows the areas for ag use highlighted, including the northern area. 

The white outline is the circumference of the area deemed

Page 3

MTT

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.

Page 1

Po. 

RECETED 

APR 15 2000 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Rod 

Draco 

23! 

357-049 

MTT Docket 

 24-00352g

Page 2

UNITED STATES 

Bs 

POSTAL SERVICE. 

EVART 

240 

N MAIN ST 

EVART, 

MI 49631-5102 

(800) 275-8777 

04/09/2025 

- 

11:05 

AM 

CTT 

hplicate 

Product 

Gy Unit Price 

Price 

Firetclass Maile 1 $2.04 

#: 

710 5270 2972 8075 47 

Tracking 

#: 

9590 9402 6006 0069 8748 68 

Total 

$10.99 

Grand Total : 

$10.99 

Cash 

$20.00 

Change 

-$9.01 

Text your tracking number to 28777 (2USPS) 

to get the latest status. 

Standard Message 

and Data rates may apply. 

You may also 

visit www.usps.com USPS Tracking or call 

1-800-222-1811. 

Preview your Mai 

Track your Packages 

Sign up for FREE @ 

https: //informeddel 

very. usps.com 

All 

sales final 

on stamps and postage. 

Refunds for guaranteed services only. 

Thank you for your business. 

Tell 

us about your experience. 

Go to: https://postalexperience.con/Pos 

or scan this code with your mobile device, 

[Oj 

30 

bo 

Ast 

[IETS 

2

Page 3

i uA 

“Garfield Township 

7 

Clare County 

P.O. Box 390 

9348 Terry Street 

Lake, Michigan 48632 

989.544.2445 

989.544.3174 (fax) 

Rodney Drouse 

PO Box 1162 

Evart, Ml 49631 

July 7, 2023 

Dear Mr. Drouse, 

Per the Michigan State Tax Commission, a parcel is qualified agricultural property through one of two ways: 

1. Classification of the parcel as agricultural on the current assessment roll, or 

2. Devotion of more than 50% of the acreage of the parcel to agricultural use as defined by MCL 

324.36101. 

Classification for parcels is determined on an annual basis, and by review of an aerial image for your parcel, 

it was determined that the correct classification for your parcel should be residential improved. 

As part of the preparation of the annual assessment, 

it was also determined at the time of the review that 

the property should not have the qualified agrioultural exemption since more than 50% of the acreage of the 

parcel is not dewctes to agricultural use. Attach 

J 

[ 

I 

e 

prope 

S 

( 

[ 

al 

us 

The State Tax Gomrlssion oy omer 

were met 

regarding the notification of the change when the assessment change notices were mailed February 17, 

2023. 

To deny an existing qualified — property exemption when preparing the annual 

assessment roll, the assessor eliminates the exemption from the assessment roll and notifies the 

property owner by mailing an assessment change notice at least 10 days before the March Board 

of Review. This procedure also applies to partial denial or removal. The appeal is to the March 

Board of Review and then to the Tax Tribunal by July 31. 

If you would like to be considered for the exemption in future years, you must file an affidavit, Form 2599, 

claiming the exemption with my office by May 1. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. 

| am generally in the office at Garfield on Fridays 

10:00 — 1:00. 

Regdtds, 

he Jf lA 7 -

Page 4

Distance 

Area 

Tap of mouse over to highlight. 

Long/Lat 

Distance Measurements 

no measure 

Area Measurements 

Area 1 

Area 2 

/ 

i 

i 

“Je, 

2 

\h 

013002340059) 

| 

I 

BL 

a 

» Buffer Tools

Page 5

7 © 956. 62% 

ON 

X 

HUNT 

> 

5) 

Ic 

b4 

rv) 

= 

[] 

Area 03/12/25 21:58 

Hide on map 

Total area 

15.14 

-

Page 6

STATE TAX COMMISSION 

QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY 

EXEMPTION GUIDELINES

Page 7

STN 

Table of Contents 

What is the Qualified Agricultural EXSMPHONT cocvrvrrereemsmsassrssmsmsmmasnsasiesssnss 2 

How does Property Qualify for the EXEMPLONT orvvnrinemrmmmmsaresessss sss 2 

Definition of AGHCUIUEI USE: c..vomrmmrisssissmmsmsmn sess 

ees 3 

OWNETSRID ¢.vvevsvercerersnss esses 

ess 

EES 5 

REIAtEd BUIGINGS 1. verereerermsessessmmassssssss 

sess sass sesso 6 

Partial EXSMPHONS ....uuimresrrresissmsssse sess 

es 7 

Other Eligibility Considerations... 

9 

Denials and APPEALS. ....ciiririirreri iin 10 

ClaSSIfICAtION APPEALS c.ovvvvrerrecrrissesnmsiss sess 12 

Withdrawals and RESCISSIONS .....oveiirreerirm 

iss 

sss 13

Page 8

What is the Qualified Agricultural Exemption? 

MCL 211.7ee provides for an exemption from certain local school operating taxes, typically 

up to 18 mills, for parcels that meet the qualified agricultural property definition. 

(1) Qualified agricultural property 

is exempt from the tax levied by 

a local school 

district for school operating purposes to the extent provided under

Page 9

Owner

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 

Rodney E Drouse 

 

Petitioner, 

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

v 

MTT Docket No.: 24-003526 

Garfield Township, 

Respondent. 

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE DEFAULT HEARING 

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone default hearing to be conducted as follows. 

Hearings are generally 30 minutes in length. 

HEARING DATE: April 30, 2025 

HEARING TIME: 

3:15 PM EST 

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316 

ACCESS CODE: 

425208668 

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join 

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You 

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call 

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a 

party or parties in default. 

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document. 

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento. 

এ এক পূণ আইিনদিলল, অনু হকের কউদিলল েকঅনুবাদক ন।

.ھذا ھو وﺛﯾﻘﺔ ﻗﺎﻧوﻧﯾﺔ ھﺎﻣﺔ ﯾرﺟﻰ ﻟدﯾك ﺷﺧص ﺗﺗرﺟم اﻟوﺛﯾﻘﺔ

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang 

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 2 of 4 

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY 

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial default hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan 

Tax Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 

et seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. A party is expected 

to exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses and administrative law judges, which 

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and dressing in appropriate clothing for in-person 

hearings. The hearing may be recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record, 

unless otherwise provided for by the Tribunal. 

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing. 

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the 

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness 

testimony. 

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to the Tribunal 

and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were previously 

submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the documents are not 

timely submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be 

submitted 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 submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to 

the opposing party or their authorized representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that 

party or authorized representative, unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other 

documentation identifying a different mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after 

the Notice of Hearing if they were previously submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party.

Inclusion of Subsequent Tax Years: Subsequent tax year assessments are automatically included in a 

valuation appeal once the assessment has been established for that tax year unless the Tribunal grants the 

exclusion of the subsequent tax year. For purposes of administrative efficiency, the Tribunal considers this 

date April 1st. As such, the parties should be prepared to discuss all additional assessments at hearings to be 

conducted on or after April 1st.

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.

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 

Rodney E Drouse, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

 

Garfield Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER FOR DEFAULT HEARING 

 

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

in default on November 14, 2024, because Respondent failed to file an answer to the 

petition. The Tribunal extended the time for Respondent to cure the default by an 

additional 14 days on December 23, 2024, and Respondent has failed to respond. 

Respondent has not complied with either order and the latter stated that “failure to 

comply with this Order may result in the scheduling of a default hearing . . .” 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 

 

Though Grimm was specific to dismissal, the cases cited by the Court and the 

reasoning behind its adoption of the factors set forth therein are not so narrow. The 

factors apply equally to default judgements, or in the case of the Tribunal proceedings, 

the conducting of a default hearing.3 Respondent in this case has failed to respond to 

multiple orders and given this failure, the Tribunal finds that its violation was willful. It 

also establishes a history of deliberate delay and refusing to comply with Tribunal 

orders, both of which have prejudiced Petitioner. 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 scheduling a default hearing is 

 

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

2 Id. at 149. 

3 See Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds by Dimmitt & Owens 

Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 (2008), Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501 

(1995), and Traxler v Ford Motor Co, 227 Mich App 276 (1998).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Page 2 of 2 

 

appropriate, and a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice. 

Therefore, 

 

IT IS ORDERED that a default hearing shall be scheduled in the normal course. 

 

 

Entered: January 31, 2025 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

smm 

 

 

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

Rodney E Drouse, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Township Of Garfield,

Respondent.

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONDENT TO CURE DEFAULT 

The Tribunal has considered the file in the above-captioned case and finds that it 

entered an order holding Respondent in default on November 14, 2024.1 Respondent 

was required to cure the default within 14 days. Respondent 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, Respondent’s failure to 

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

history of deliberate delay that would justify scheduling a default hearing for failure to 

timely comply with this Order.2 Therefore,

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

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

default: (1) file the documentation required by the November 14, 2024 default order, (2) 

file a Motion to Set Aside Default, (3) pay the $25.00 Motion fee, and (4) file proof the 

Motion and a copy of the documentation were served on Petitioner. The foregoing must 

be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the scheduling of a default hearing, as 

provided by TTR 231.3 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: December 23, 2024

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

3 See also MCL 205.732.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Page 2 of 4

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 provide 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

Rodney E Drouse, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526 

Township Of Garfield,

Respondent.

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR RESPONDENT TO CURE DEFAULT 

The Tribunal has considered the file in the above-captioned case and finds that it 

entered an order holding Respondent in default on November 14, 2024.4 Respondent 

was required to cure the default within 14 days. Respondent 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, Respondent’s failure to 

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

history of deliberate delay that would justify scheduling a default hearing for failure to 

timely comply with this Order.5 Therefore,

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

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

default: (1) file the documentation required by the November 14, 2024 default order, (2) 

file a Motion to Set Aside Default, (3) pay the $25.00 Motion fee, and (4) file proof the 

Motion and a copy of the documentation were served on Petitioner. The foregoing must 

be filed with the Tribunal within 14 days of the entry of this Order.

Failure to comply with this Order may result in the scheduling of a default hearing, as 

provided by TTR 231.6 

By:___________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered:

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

Rodney E Drouse,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Respondent has failed to file an answer. As such, Respondent must file and serve an 

answer to the petition and file proof demonstrating service of the answer within 14 days 

of the entry of this Order. See TTR 229 and 221. Tribunal rules and information on 

Entire Tribunal answers can be found on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent 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: November 14, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Page 2 of 6

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

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 219(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

Rodney E Drouse,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT

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

Respondent has failed to file an answer. As such, Respondent must file and serve an 

answer to the petition and file proof demonstrating service of the answer within 14 days 

of the entry of this Order. See TTR 229 and 221. Tribunal rules and information on 

Entire Tribunal answers can be found on our website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent 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: November 14, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Page 4 of 6

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

Page 5

STA

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

Rodney E Drouse, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

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

was held in default on September 24, 2024, and the default has been timely cured. The 

documents curing the default can be reviewed through the docket search function on 

the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket number and 

clicking on the document link next to the line item entry for the documents. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By_________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 17, 2024

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

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

Rodney E Drouse, 

Petitioner,

 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

Respondent.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT

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

was held in default on September 24, 2024, and the default has been timely cured. The 

documents curing the default can be reviewed through the docket search function on 

the Tribunal’s website at www.michigan.gov/taxtrib by inputting the docket number and 

clicking on the document link next to the line item entry for the documents. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Default is SET ASIDE.

By_________________________________

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Entered: October 17, 2024

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 provide 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

09/27/2024 

04:38 

PM 

2024 BOARD OF REVIEW DECISION 

 recervep 

FROM 

OCT a8 2024 

GARFIELD TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR 

MICHIGAN 

- 

PO BOX 390 

WAN 

TAX TRIBUNAL 

Lake, MI 48632 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OR PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: (Parcel Code required. Property address 

and legal description optional): 

013-023-400-64 

S MCKINLEY AVE 

DROUSE RODNEY 

PO BOX 1162 

T17N R6W SEC 23 

. ALL THAT PART OF E 1/2 OF SE 1/4 

EVART, MI 49631 

LYING NOF PM RR R/W EXC BEG AT NE COR THEREOF TH 

S ALG SEC L. 466.69 FT TH W 466.69 FT TH N 466.69 FT TO 

E&W 1/4 L TH 466.69 FTE TO POB. FROM 400-59 

THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED 

401 (RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

Thank you for attending this years March Board of Review. The Board has reviewed the information you supplied and the data necessary 

to compute your assessment and taxable value. 

The Board has completed their review of parcel number 013-023-400-64 

They have made the following determination based on the information you supplied. 

Board of Review Comments 

NOT MORE THAN 50% OF THE PROPERTY IS DEDICATED TO AGRICULTURAL USE. 

[2024 

ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE 

52,900 

| 

[2024 "BOARD OF REVIEW" ASSESSED VALUE 

52,900 

| 

(If the above amounts are the same, no revisions have occured) 

[2024 

ORIGINAL TAXABLE VALUE 

42,412 

[2024 

"BOARD OF REVIEW" TAXABLE VALUE 

42,412 

[2024 PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION/QUALIFIED AG 

0.0000 

Please feel free to contact the assessor at the address listed above or call if you have any questions. 

"Effective March 1, 2013, the Tribunal is no longer able to accept Small Claims letter appeals. Rather, you are required to file a petition to 

initiate a new Small Claims appeal. Petition forms are available on this website." 

http:/fwww.michigan.gov/taxtrib/0,4677,7-187-38254---,00. html

Page 2

Rod E. Drouse D.C., P.C. 

Retail 

ey 

Py Falr st. 

ll ll 

“LAKE, MI 48632 

Gs 

.0. Box 1162 

= 

OCT 04, 2024 

Evart, MI 49631 

uniren mares 

POSTAL SERVICES 

48909 

$0.00 

RDC 99 

R2306Y152254-20 

Michigan Fosedrbyna | 

fo bw 30232 

| 

Lawing 

 M/ 

1€707 

Docket 29-003524 

Wp Pg 

de yh 

og Jy 0 0 

fy fl 

pe

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

Rodney E Drouse,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

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 277. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this Order. 

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 24, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Page 2 of 4

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

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 219(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

Rodney E Drouse,

Petitioner, MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v

 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

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 277. As such, Petitioner must submit the notice within 

14 days of the entry of this Order. 

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 24, 2024

Patricia L. Halm, Tribunal Chair

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Page 4 of 4

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

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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY. AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION / QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION 

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. 

fl 

Section 1: a Contact Information 

First Name 

Ml 

Last Name/Company Name 

= 

Dros” 

Mailing ch Lo d__ P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

0 Box 

[162 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Evart 

m( 

953) 

’ 

23 

78 7- 0¢bpf 

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

Cdrovse Pat. we — 

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

First Name 

M.I 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

H 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

J 

{

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Parcel Identification Number: 

013~ 023-4006 4f 

How many 

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

parcelsareyou | [7] vest 

[| No** 

appealing? 

*if yes, use a multiple parcet form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

| 

**if no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defautted. 

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

{If multiple, list first property's address] 

O13-023-900-4y 

§ MC feintey Ave 

Like MT YE63) 

Taxing Authority (City or Township) 

County 

Lake 

clare 

Classification of Property: 

herp! 

Gommercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check 

one) 

Section 4: Check which of the following 

you are appealing 

[| Principal Residence Exemption 

& 

qualified Agricultural Exemption 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

The Prevecty 

class; Frapon 

Nas cha nyed rows 

Pur, lcFred frarcolArn) 

Jo 

Repoen Fas Twmproves 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

List the tax year(s) denled; 2023 2024 

Indicate who denied the exemption under appeal: 

Assessor 

County Treasurer or Equalization 

Michigan Dept. of Treasury 

July Board of Review 

December Board of Review 

Other

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

A fee of $25.00 is required for the filing of this appeal unless you possess a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of 

the filing of this petition. 

Signature required 

Petitioner 

or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

Oisn 

2 

Isl 

ud 

Zz

Page 4

Rod E. Drouse D.C., P.C. 

101 Fair St. 

U.S. POSTAGE PAID 

PO. Box 1162 

= 

EVART, MEX #.if POs 

&pilG 

| 

Evart, MI 49631 

= 

JURFS 0 

oe. 

AMOUNT 

- 

Ln 

Am 

0000 

4.00 

R2305K13837! 

ichigo [oxen] 

Ol] 

Ww. 

orfaus st Lansing yw UET33 

SS 

LU TT ET YL 

eres 

oy

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

Rodney E Drouse,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

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 279. 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: September 24, 2024

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 provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Page 2

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

Rodney E Drouse,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

v 

MTT Docket No. 24-003526

Township Of Garfield,

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 279. 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: September 24, 2024

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 provide 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 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY. AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION / QUALIFIED AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTION 

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. 

fl 

Section 1: a Contact Information 

First Name 

Ml 

Last Name/Company Name 

= 

Dros” 

Mailing ch Lo d__ P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

0 Box 

[162 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Evart 

m( 

953) 

’ 

23 

78 7- 0¢bpf 

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

Cdrovse Pat. we — 

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

First Name 

M.I 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

H 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

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

J 

{

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Parcel Identification Number: 

013~ 023-4006 4f 

How many 

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

parcelsareyou | [7] vest 

[| No** 

appealing? 

*if yes, use a multiple parcet form for information regarding any contiguous parcels. 

| 

**if no, you must file separate appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel or you will be defautted. 

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

{If multiple, list first property's address] 

O13-023-900-4y 

§ MC feintey Ave 

Like MT YE63) 

Taxing Authority (City or Township) 

County 

Lake 

clare 

Classification of Property: 

herp! 

Gommercial 

industrial 

Residential 

Timber-Cutover 

Developmental 

Utility 

(check 

one) 

Section 4: Check which of the following 

you are appealing 

[| Principal Residence Exemption 

& 

qualified Agricultural Exemption 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

The Prevecty 

class; Frapon 

Nas cha nyed rows 

Pur, lcFred frarcolArn) 

Jo 

Repoen Fas Twmproves 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

List the tax year(s) denled; 2023 2024 

Indicate who denied the exemption under appeal: 

Assessor 

County Treasurer or Equalization 

Michigan Dept. of Treasury 

July Board of Review 

December Board of Review 

Other

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Fee Information 

A fee of $25.00 is required for the filing of this appeal unless you possess a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% at the time of 

the filing of this petition. 

Signature required 

Petitioner 

or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

Oisn 

2 

Isl 

ud 

Zz

Page 4

Rod E. Drouse D.C., P.C. 

101 Fair St. 

U.S. POSTAGE PAID 

PO. Box 1162 

= 

EVART, MEX #.if POs 

&pilG 

| 

Evart, MI 49631 

= 

JURFS 0 

oe. 

AMOUNT 

- 

Ln 

Am 

0000 

4.00 

R2305K13837! 

ichigo [oxen] 

Ol] 

Ww. 

orfaus st Lansing yw UET33 

SS 

LU TT ET YL 

eres 

oy

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.