Thomas W Gibbons, Petitioner V Township Of Flint, 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 

Thomas W Gibbons, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004246 

 

Flint 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 May 8, 2025, because Petitioner failed to file a severed petition for the 2024 

tax year as order by the Final Opinion and Judgment issued on February 26, 2025, on 

MTT Docket No. 23-002232. Petitioner failed to respond and 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. 24-004246 

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: June 10, 2025 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

 

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

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

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

representatives. 

 

By: Tribunal Clerk

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

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 

Thomas W Gibbons, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 24-004246 

 

Flint 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 entered a 

corrected order severing the 2024 tax year from Docket No. 23-002232 on April 10, 

2025. The order required Petitioner to file a petition for the 2024 tax year within 21 days 

of entry of the order. Petitioner has had ample time to comply but has failed to respond 

or file the required petition. Petitioner is subject to default as a result, and their failure to 

comply with Tribunal orders and rules 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 14 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. 

 

 

 

Entered: May 8, 2025 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

kac 

 

 

 

 

1 See TTR 237 Grimm v Dep’t of Treasury, 291 Mich App 140 (2010).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-004246 

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 

Thomas W Gibbons, 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 23-002232 & 

24-004246 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

 

Flint Township, 

 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

CORRECTED 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-004246 

 

The Tribunal held a hearing in this matter on June 24, 2024. Neither party provided the 

original assessment values for 2024, nor has either party provided valuation disclosures 

that specifically address their assertions of true cash value (TCV) for 2024. The 

Tribunal lacked the appropriate information from either party to make an independent 

determination of TCV for 2024. Therefore, 

 

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

year within 21 days of the 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 docket number 24-004246 as a “Severed Petition.1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By _____________________________ 

 

Date Entered by Tribunal: April 10, 2025 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Alternatively, the petition may be downloaded from the Tribunal’s website and mailed to the Tribunal via 

United States Postal Service at: Michigan Tax Tribunal, PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909. The petition 

may also be delivered to the Tribunal via overnight carrier (UPS, FedEx, or DHL) at: Michigan Tax 

Tribunal, 2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48933.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 23-002232 & 24-004246 

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 

Thomas W Gibbons, 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner, 

 

 

 

 

 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

MTT Docket No. 23-002232 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Type: Valuation 

 

Flint Township, 

 

 

 

 

 

Presiding Judge 

 

Respondent. 

 

 

 

 

Joshua M. Wease 

 

ORDER SEVERING 2024 TAX YEAR AND ASSIGNING IT 

DOCKET NUMBER 24-004246 

 

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT 

 

Location of Hearing: 

 

 

Saginaw, MI 

Hearing Held on: 

 

 

 

June 24, 2024 

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner: 

Thomas W Gibbons 

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Paula Dotson 

 

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT 

 

 

The subject property’s true cash value (TCV), state equalized value (SEV), and 

taxable value (TV), for the tax year at issue, shall be as follows: 

 

 

Parcel Number: 07-20-505-028 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$170,000

$85,000

$68,880

 

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 May 30, 2023, and Respondent 

filed an Answer on July 13, 2023.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 23-002232 

Page 2 of 15 

 

 

The amount of SEV or 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 

 

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW 

 

The issues in this matter are: 

 

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

 

 

Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision 

in writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled 

“findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise 

statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the 

 

1 See MCL 205.762(1). 

2 See MCL 205.737(5)(b). 

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. 23-002232 

Page 3 of 15 

 

evidence.”11 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or 

every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence 

contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by 

authority or reasoned opinion.”12 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of 

evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering 

judgment. 

 

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 

 

A. Petitioner’s Evidence 

 

Petitioner’s contentions of TCV, SEV, and TV: 

 

Parcel Number: 07-20-505-028 

Year

TCV

SEV

TV

2023

$131,200

$65,600

$65,600

 

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 1, and 16-37 of the docket 

maintained in this case.13 No exhibits were excluded from evidence. 

 

 

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

contends that a sales comparison approach supports their contention that the 

assessments on this property are too high. Petitioner objects to some of Respondent’s 

sales. First, the sale at 5081 Caulkins is the highest price sale, and it looks like it has 

had a remodel. There is a triple driveway to the garage in back with gazebo and a huge 

deck. It has a pool, fantastic shed, new roof, double sidewalk, and updated kitchen. 

The garage is heated and hooked up to 220 amps. Further, the lot size makes a 

significant difference in value, say, between a half-acre and a quarter-acre lot. Lot size 

is not considered in the various sales approaches. Petitioner’s report spells out the 

different steps, trend, sales, and sales approach and pictures. 

 

 

There were some corrections to the Property Record Card (PRC) when the 

Township inspected the property. The subject home has no basement, and it is a tri-

level not a quad level. The PRC has been changed and is up to date. The subject is a 

60-year-old house that should have a depreciation of 45% instead of the 64% 

depreciation that the assessor has for the property. Petitioner questions Respondent’s 

rates

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.