Michigan

Sheena York, Petitioner V Township Of Mason, Respondent

Petitioner: Sheena York
Respondent: Township Of Mason

Case overview

Docket number: 25-003540-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Cass
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
12	Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	02/10/2026	Not recorded	Download
11	No Action Taken	RESP	Not recorded	02/10/2026	Not recorded	Not recorded
10	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	01/26/2026	Not recorded	Download
9	Order for Default Hearing	Not recorded	Not recorded	01/20/2026	Not recorded	Download
8	Order Extending P's Default	Not recorded	6	01/20/2026	Not recorded	Download
7	Order of Partial Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	12/17/2025	Not recorded	Download
6	Order Holding Petitioner in Default	Not recorded	Not recorded	12/17/2025	Not recorded	Download
5	Order Extending R's Default	Not recorded	4	12/17/2025	Not recorded	Download
4	Order Holding Party in Default	Not recorded	Not recorded	11/19/2025	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	10/07/2025	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number SC	Not recorded	Not recorded	10/07/2025	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	07/29/2025	$0.00	Download

Documents

25-003540 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

Sheena York,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003540

Mason 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 December 17, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a copy of the notice

giving rise to the appeal. On January 20, 2026, 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. 25-003540 

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 10, 2026 

 

 

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.

25-003540.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

FEB 0 3 2026 

Ey 

Led 

To 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

* GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON 1. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

VALUATION / UNCAPPING 

MTT DOCKET NO. 25-003540 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact information 

Unit of Government 

MASON TOWNSHIP 

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

67482 COYOTE TRAIL 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Cods: 

EDWARDSBURG 

Mi 

49112 

Telephone Number: 

’ 

269-663-3057 

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

kevinh9115@gmail.com 

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

First Name: 

Ml: 

Last Name: 

KEVIN 

S 

HARRIS 

Firm Name (if any): 

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

67482 COYOTE TRAIL 

City or Town: 

State: 

ZIP Code: 

EDWARDSBURG 

Mi 

49112 

Telephone “mr 069-663-305 7 

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

kevinh9115@gmail.com 

Section 3: Subject Property information 

Are the parcels listed by Petitioner contiguous or adjoining? 

If no, list all parcels that are adjoining in separate groupings. Attacha 

separate 

sheet if necessary. 

[lves 

[wo 

Not Applicable 

Does the subject property have a Principal Residence Exemption of 50% or more for ail tax years at Issue? 

[M4 ves 

[J No

Page 2

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DE

GOVERNOR 

Section 4: Explain 

SEE ENCLOSED R

ALSO, 

| NEVER RE

WOULD EXPLAIN W

Section 5: Jurisdict

IF PE

Did Petitioner protest the asse

If yes, check which BOR Petiti

if the July or December BOR r

ifyes, cite the Board's authorit

Was the assessment at issue e

If yes, explain 

Is Petitioner appealing from a 

Oves 

no 

if so, what Is the issue date? 

IF

When was the Notice of Uncapp

Under what statutory section w

Section 6: Valuation

Parcel Numer: 4-060

Classification of Property: 

Agricultural C1 

~~ Commercia

Assessed Value (also known as

by 

the 

Board 

of Review: 

¥the 

Board 

of 

Review: 

$3

What do you believe is the fair 

$7

What do you believe is the asse

I 

8] 

value by 

.5) 

$35

Signature 

*required 

Respondent or Attorney/Author

Isl

Page 3

raxPO23URIENS ZOU ING BTQRTITSI POWSSP UTIIDY UOTIOWIOIUT 

wax 

[sogs ‘62 

005 ‘62 

0 

00562 

2202 

x 

} 

URHTUSTH 

‘Sse 

N 

" 

' 

A 

; 

Jo 

Kuno) 

‘ucsel 

Jo dTYSUMC] 

0] P3suadT 

0SLECE 

; 

Q0L’LE 

00% 

“6S 

00g 

‘8¢ 

£202 

edie Tien ad 

ae 

-zezITENbT 

BY, 

£6856 

1 

00T‘pOT 

000°z9 

001’2% 

[A 

i 

SVEL'SHE 

006°29€ 

009’p1¢ 

00£’8Y 

S202 

aeuM 

usum 

oumM 

isnTen 

22420 

|motaay 

enTes 

lanTes 

enTep 

jeTqexe] 

/TRuUnqTig 

I30 preog 

passassy 

{putpTIng 

pueq 

1e93 

UTeTd pooTd 

; 

pueTIam 

autaey 

JUOIFIDJEM 

pueg 

papooy 

dureng 

padesspue] 

ubtH 

. 

- 

| 

#07 

TCOZ €0°TT 

:1ITdS ALHIAOME 

(AEAYOS T0L0T 

butTToY 

NO WHANIVWIY) 

~SINIWISYE 

OL LENS 

"€1 

OES 

12431 

UI/ROCY GLt8 

"90d 

OL 

Id 

087678 Mu8Z.TS,00 

2171S 

S$ 

HL 

‘13 

00°00T 

‘ENIT HIHDIZ 

§ 

HIIM WYv¥d 

30 Aydeabodor, 

‘FuTh.0T.68 

§ 

HL 

{LI 

00°EFZ Mu8Z,T5,00 

Ts 

5 

i 

S 

HI 

‘1d 

00°00Z 

‘ZENIT HIHDI® 

S$ 

HIIM ¥dvd 

san punozbaspul, 

‘HuZ¥.0T,68 

§ HL 

‘ZI 007067 Mu8Z.15,00 

TREIA PIEPUTIS 

S HL 

‘Id L1°8p€ 

‘ENIT OS SIY ‘HuZb.0T.68 

SIUPTT 389738 

S HI 

‘INIT HIEDIZ 

$ OI 1d 19°89 

‘ENIT 

azno 

MIO 

§ 

% 

N HIIM ¥¥¥d ‘E.15.05,00 

N HI 

‘DES 

srxao0en 

ds 

40 

INIT ¥I0 

S$ 

® 

N 

JC 

¥ 

LI 

00°99 

ONIZd 

Gr9 ‘61 

= sures used @nIl sijuswsscxdw] pueT PIIBWTIST TEIOL 

TT 

Xamag 

INIOd 

¥ OL 1d 

00° SES 

‘ENE 035 

§ Hin 

e590 61 

5 

2662 

90-2 

53570000 UTh 

td/M/Q 

Tonen 

wd B.80,5T.68 

N HI 

{1d 00°50L 

‘ENIT 

antes usen 

pocs 

5 5718 

Sqes 

woradianseq 

SE 

91D 

§ 

5 

N HIIN WA ‘3.19,06.00 

N HI ‘13 

setewrisa 3500 tuewsacadu pued 

ronan tons 

¥6°ZTT 

‘INIT G5 OT¢ 

'MuB0.S1,68 

N HI 604 

co 

SAT 

OL 

1d 

B80'6b6T 

‘ENIT DIS 

§ 

DIV 

‘MuB0.GT.68 

pROY Posed 

N 

‘El DES JO HOD 3S WMJ 

‘MPT¥ SBI 

‘NIEZ 

{ 

80996 

= anTep puet 

"IST TRIOL 

S2I0Y 

Te3I0L 

§L°8 

PEON [94839 

uot3diansag eg 

. 

‘ 

. 

2 

peoy 

13ITQ 

Tiat 

a 

809796 

00T 

TPC'TT 

S3IDY 

Q06L°8 

FOVA¥DY 

TYNOILIQAY 

anyeA 

uoseay 

-[pys 

=231ed 

yadag 

2uoxy 

uyzdeg 

sbHeiuoay 

uotadraoseg 

sjuswasoxdul 

x 

SI03D83 

2TTang 

TYIINICISEY TRENY ¥M 

STQel 

pueT 

JOoJ 

S33PWTISH 

SNTRA PUR] 

AUBDRAL 

paanIdwT; 

X 

0€T6y 

IW NOINO 

7 

. 

RB 

+ 

. 

IS ENAYM 08£91 

SL 

L6E 

WAL/ADLI 

988°GZL ADL 

ISH 202 

YNTIHS WHOA 

itd 

SS3IPPY/SWeN §,IDUMO 

SZ0Z/V1/€0 

%00T 

"d"¥°& 

ISIQ 

HOS DITENd ANIINYLSNOD 

:100Uds 

1S ANRYM 

08E9T 

sujels 

ABAUION 

| 

332g 

(s) 3Twasg BuTPTINgiDY 

1-¥ 

:BUTUOZ \OWIRI-TYIINEAT SEN 

isse1d 

ssaappy Aaxadoag 

r 

lor oot 

fatctciel 

269/EBTT 

INYOUA LITdS-Z€ 

HIOi 

0202/12/01 

[00S ‘6Y 

FAVA 

3 NYIWYG YONNOD,O 

I80¥L 

DO XETYIES NOSXVA 

0°00T 

fetctcte) 

TEE/G6TT 

YEHIO/CHSA LON-TZ 

00} 

1207/12/00 

(879°C 

UNITES NOX 

AYU 

3 NVINYD YONNCD,O 

-suear 

, 

Kgl 

beg 

» 

adAL 

seq 

oo1ag 

‘3uo3zd 

| 

pa1ITISA| 

T9911 

DTES JO SUIS] 

3sul 

sTeS 

aTeRS 

@33jue1n 

103URIH 

9202/92/10 

uo pajuTid 

$8¥D 

:A3uned 

JdIHSNMOL NOSYH 

juoTIOTPSTAND 

90-9€Z-€T0-090-Vy1 

:IdqUAN T3DI2d

Page 4

003 

3 

1BOH PeOI0g 

0 

$202 

¥zZ1 

¥ 

© PaIULA-3081TQ|T 

quy-1dez 

tzznoep 

soeuIng 100T/ {TEM 

UT 

pI 

parspousy| 

37Tag 

17 

0 

:sI00Q 

‘YOIBH 

A038 POOY 

qul tzznoep 

ze388y eceds 

. 

. 

= 

hd 

uoT1eIODS 

§ 

WIIL 

0 

:sxocog 

‘o3ny 

y3Iedy pastey 

wooIBdUT 

1eey 

Trew SII0ATE 

A¥QOLS 

ENO 

sex 

ie pousTUTI 

ZOIBTADITD Ie0y 

pooH pajusp 

(700T3-uT) 

Juerpey 

091 pooy 

paroued

Page 5

cxxPoOU

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.

25-003540Ex P Def Default Hrg Order.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

Sheena York,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-003540

Mason Township,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT

ORDER FOR DEFAULT HEARING

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

holding Petitioner in default on December 17, 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 the BOR results from

Respondent and filing a copy with the Tribunal within 14 days. 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 the dismissal of the case for

failure to timely comply with this order.2

Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that Respondent was placed in default on November 19,

2025, because they failed to file an answer. The Tribunal extended the time for

Respondent to cure the default by an additional 14 days on December 17, 2025, and it

has failed to respond or submit the required filing(s). Given this failure, the Tribunal

finds that Respondent’s violation was willful. It also establishes a history of deliberate

delay and refusing to comply with Tribunal rules and orders, both of which have

prejudiced Petitioner. As a result, giving careful consideration to the Grimm factors and

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

finds that scheduling a default hearing is warranted, and a lesser sanction would not be

appropriate or better serve the interests of justice.3 Therefore,

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 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010). Though Grimm was specific to the sanction

of 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. 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). See also TTR 237.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-003540

Page 2 of 2

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

default: (1) file a copy of the BOR results, (2) file a Motion to Set Aside Default, and (3)

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 this case, as provided by

TTR 237.5

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

course.6

Entered: January 20, 2026

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.

6 A “default hearing" is “a hearing at which the defaulted party is precluded from presenting any testimony,

offering any evidence, and examining the other