Michigan

Tommy D LLC, Petitioner V City Of Farmington, Respondent

Petitioner: Tommy D LLC
Respondent: City Of Farmington

Case overview

Docket number: 25-002499-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Oakland
Judge: No judge assigned

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
5	Order of Dismissal	Not recorded	Not recorded	08/27/2025	Not recorded	Download
4	Order Extending P's Default	Not recorded	Not recorded	07/24/2025	Not recorded	Download
3	Filing Fee Transferred from 25-002467	Not recorded	Not recorded	06/25/2025	$50.00	Not recorded
2	Order Holding Petitioner in Default	Not recorded	Not recorded	06/25/2025	Not recorded	Download
1	Order Severing Parcel No. 20-23-26-357-023 from 25-002467	Not recorded	Not recorded	06/25/2025	Not recorded	Download

Documents

25-002499 Dismiss.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

Tommy D LLC,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 25-002499

City of Farmington,

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 June 25, 2025, because Petitioner failed to list the correct party in interest

on the petition form and, although Petitioner paid a filing fee, Petitioner failed to pay the

full amount due for the filing of the petition. On July 24, 2025, 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. 25-002499 

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: August 27, 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.

25-002499 Extend 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 

Tommy D LLC, 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

 

Petitioner, 

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION 

 

v 

 

MTT Docket No. 25-002499 

 

City Of Farmington, 

 

Presiding Judge 

Respondent. 

 

Patricia L. Halm 

 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR PETITIONER TO CURE DEFAULT 

 

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

June 25, 2025, severing the instant appeal from MTT Docket No 25-002467 and further 

holding Petitioner in default because Petitioner failed to list the correct party in interest 

on the petition form and, although Petitioner paid a filing fee, Petitioner failed to pay the 

full amount due for the filing of the petition.1 Petitioner was required to cure the default 

by filing a severed petition listing Tommy D LLC as the party in interest for Parcel No. 

20-23-26-357-023, and pay the additional $200.00 filing fee required for filing the 

petition within 14 days of the entry of the order, noting the docket number previously 

assigned by the Tribunal, and if utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system, file as an 

“severed petition.” 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 Therefore, 

 

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 an severed Petition for Valuation Appeal indicating the docket number 

previously assigned by the Tribunal, and if utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing system file as a 

“severed petition;” (2) pay the additional $200.00 petition filing fee; (3) file a Motion to 

Set Aside Default; (4) pay the $25.00 fee required for the filing of the motion, and (5) 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.3 

 

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 “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.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002499 

Page 2 of 2 

 

Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the case, as provided by 

TTR 237.4 

 

 

Entered: July 24, 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 

 

 

 

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). 

4 See also MCL 205.732.

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.

25-002467 Sever Def.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

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

Community Property LLC,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

Tommy D LLC,

Petitioner,

MTT Docket Nos. 25-002467

& 25-002499

City of Farmington,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Patricia L. Halm

ORDER SEVERING PARCEL NO 20-23-26-357-023 TO DOCKET NO 25-002499

ORDER UPDATING DOCKET NO 25-002467

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT IN DOCKET NO 25-002467

ORDER HOLDING PETITIONER IN DEFAULT IN DOCKET NO 25-002499

The Tribunal has reviewed the file in this case and finds that a petition was filed on May

16, 2025, naming Tom Dedvukaj as Petitioner in the uncapping appeal for Parcel Nos.

20-23-26-357-029 and 20-23-26-357-023. The petition indicates that the parcels are

contiguous. The petition also includes attachments of the Board of Review decisions for

both parcels. Those decisions indicate that Tom Dedvukaj is not the named owner for

either appealed parcel. Those decisions indicate that each appealed parcel is owned

by a different entity.

The Tribunal finds that the parcels, while purportedly contiguous, cannot be filed in a

single appeal because each party in interest, as Petitioner, is required to file a separate

petition. Although the parties are commonly represented, each parcel has only one

indicated party in interest eligible to file a petition as the property owner.1 “Party in

interest” refers to a person or entity with a property interest in the property being

assessed, and “property interest” is “a legal share in something and “all or part of a legal

or equitable claim to or right in property.”2 Accordingly, the Tribunal shall sever Parcel

No. 20-23-26-357-023 into a separate docket. A separate additional petition filing fee is

due as a result of the severance.3

Further, because Tom Dedvukaj is not a party in interest for either appeal, an amended

1 See MCL 205.735a(6).

2 See Spartan Stores Inc v City of Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 575-576 and fn 9 (2014).

3 TTR 223(2).

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 25-002467 & 25-002499

Page 2 of 3

petition is required for both appeals. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Parcel No. 20-23-26-357-023 is SEVERED to Docket No. 25-

002499.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Docket No. 25-002467 is UPDATED to reflect the

correct party in interest.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT in Docket No. 25-

002467.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall cure the default in Docket No. 25-

002467 by filing an amended petition within 14 days of entry of this order. The

amended petition shall indicate that Community Property LLC is the party in interest for

Parcel No. 20-23-26-357-029.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is held in DEFAULT in Docket No. 25-

002499.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall cure the default in Docket No. 25-

002499 by filing a severed petition and additional $200.00 petition filing fee within 14

days of the entry of this order.4 The severed petition shall indicate that Tommy D LCC

is the party in interest for Parcel No. 20-23-26-357-023. The petition shall note the

docket number assigned by the Tribunal and, if filed utilizing the Tribunal’s e-filing

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

Failure to comply with this order in Docket No. 25-002467 will result in Petitioner being

required to file a motion to set aside the default (with appropriate filing fee).5

Failure to comply with this order in Docket No. 25-002499 will result in the dismissal of

that case.6

Entered: June 25, 2025

By _____________________________

bw/am

4 Petitioner paid a $300.00 petition filing fee in Docket No. 25-002467. The petition filing fee owed for

Parcel No. 20-23-26-357-029 is $250.00. See TTR 223(2)(a)(ii). Therefore, $50.00 of the fee paid on

May 16, 2025, is transferred to Docket No. 25-002499. The petition filing fee on Docket No. 25-002499 is

also $250.00 under TTR 223(2)(a)(ii). See also TTR 269.

5 See TTR 237(1).

6 Id.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 25-002467 & 25-002499 

Page 3 of 3 

 

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