Sherrie Noto, Petitioner V Township Of Millington, 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 

Sherrie Noto, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004109 

 

Millington Township, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 

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

severing the 2024 tax year into this appeal from MTT Docket No. 24-000011 on 

November 26, 2024. Petitioner was required to file a severed petition but did not 

respond to the order. Petitioner was placed in default on December 23, 2024, and the 

Tribunal allowed an additional 14 days to cure the default. Petitioner again has failed to 

respond. Petitioner has not complied with either order, and the latter stated that “failure 

to comply with this Order shall 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, considering 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. 24-004109 

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: January 8, 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 

Sherrie Noto, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004109 

 

Millington Township, 

 

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 24-000011 on November 26, 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: December 23, 2024 

 

 

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. 24-004109 

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 

Sherrie Noto, 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-000011 

 

& 24-004109 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Poverty Exemption 

 

Millington Township, 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Mark Perry 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-004109 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Telephonic 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

August 13, 2024 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Sherrie Noto 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Heather MacDermaid 

 

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

 

The subject property shall not be granted a poverty exemption for the 2023 tax year. 

 

Given the above, the subject property’s taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, 

shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 017-031-000-4300-02 

Year 

TV 

2023 

$48,660 

 

The 2024 tax year shall be severed and assigned MTT Docket No. 24-004109. 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 

Petitioner requested a poverty exemption before the 2023 December Board of Review 

(BOR) and 2024 March BOR. 

 

The BOR issued its decision on December 12, 2023.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-000011 & 24-004109 

Page 2 of 10 

Petitioner filed a Petition with the Tribunal on January 3, 2024, and Respondent filed an 

Answer on February 8, 2024. 

 

Petitioner did request a poverty exemption from the 2024 March BOR.1 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner’s property qualifies for a property tax 

exemption due to reasons of poverty, pursuant to MCL 211.7u. 

 

The petitioner must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to an 

exemption.2 

 

MCL 211.7u provides, in pertinent part: 

 

(1) The principal residence of persons, who, in the judgment of the supervisor 

and board of review, by reason of poverty, are unable to contribute toward 

the public charges is eligible for exemption in whole or in part from 

taxation under this act. This section does not apply to the property of a 

corporation. 

 

(2) To be eligible under this section, a person shall do all of the following on 

an annual basis… 

 

(e) Meet the federal poverty guidelines published in the prior 

calendar year in the Federal Register by the United States 

Department of Health and Human Services under its authority to 

revise the poverty line under 42 USC 9902, or alternative 

guidelines adopted by the governing body of the local assessing 

unit provided the alternative guidelines do not provide income 

eligibility requirements less than the federal guidelines. 

 

* * * 

 

(5) The board of review shall follow the policy and guidelines of the local assessing 

unit in granting or denying an exemption under this section. If a person claiming 

an exemption under this section is qualified under the eligibility requirements in 

subsection (2), the board of review shall grant the exemption in whole or in part, 

as follows: 

 

(a) A full exemption equal to a 100% reduction in taxable value for the tax 

year in which the exemption is granted. 

 

(b) A partial exemption equal to 1 of the following: 

 

1 See MCL 205.737(5). 

2 See ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich App 490; 644 NW2d 47 (2002).

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-000011 & 24-004109 

Page 3 of 10 

(i) 

A 75%, 50% or 25% reduction in taxable value for the tax year in 

which the exemption is granted. 

 

(ii) 

As approved by the state tax commission, any other percentage 

reduction in taxable value for the tax year in which the exemption is 

granted, applied in a form and manner prescribed by the state tax 

commission. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contention of TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 017-031-000-4300-02 

Year 

TV 

2023 

$0 

2024 

$0 

 

Petitioner offered the following exhibits: 

 

1. Evidence, filed on January 3, 2024 

a. 2023 December BOR Affidavit, dated December 12,2023 

2. Evidence, filed on July 5, 2024 

a. 2024 March BOR Decision 

 

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

that it is eligible for a poverty exemption because her income is below Respondent’s 

income test threshold. 

 

Petitioner provided testimony that she owns and occupies the subject property as her 

principal residence. The real estate that she and her granddaughter occupy includes 

land and a used doublewide modular home. Three months after getting married, her 

husband passed away leaving her the real estate, a motorcycle, and she retained 

ownership of her 2015 Jeep Wrangler which she testified needs a new engine. 

Petitioner also testified that upon death of her husband, he still owed $11,000 on an 

existing land contract for the land only, and the used modular home was paid in full. As 

a means to pay down a portion of the outstanding land contract, the vendor agreed to 

accept her husband’s motorcycle in exchange for reducing Petitioner’s outstanding land 

contract amount to $6,000. 

 

Petitioner also testified that she is disabled with a rare form/type of diabetes requiring 

her minor granddaughter to live with her essentially being present twenty-four/seven in 

the home due to possible seizures and potential of falling into a comma when blood 

sugar levels drop without warning. Due to her disability, Petitioner testified she receives

Page 4

MTT Docket No. 24-000011 & 24-004109 

Page 4 of 10 

about $824 per month in social security benefit, about $100 per month in supplemental 

social security insurance, and supplemental food assistance. Accordingly, pursuant to 

Respondent’s poverty exemption income test guidelines, Petitioner provided testimony 

her 2023 income was $11,088. The Tribunal inquired if Petitioner’s granddaughter

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.