Opinion
355390
10-21-2021
MELINDA HUBBARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CITY OF NORTHVILLE, Respondent-Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Tax Tribunal LC No. 20-003272-TT
Before: Shapiro, P.J., and Borrello and O'Brien, JJ.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner appeals as of right the order of the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) dismissing her petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2019, petitioner purchased a two-story condominium for $170,000. At that time, the property had an assessed true cash value of $200,600. However, because the previous owners had been in possession of the property for about 30 years, the taxable value of the property prior to the sale was only $59,107. Once the property was transferred, its taxable value became "uncapped" and was "no longer predicated on the previous year's taxable value." Mich Props, LLC v Meridian Twp, 491 Mich. 518, 531; 817 N.W.2d 548 (2012) (quotation marks omitted). A notice of assessment was sent to petitioner providing her information on the property's taxable value, assessed value, and state equalized value for 2019 and 2020. Most relevant to petitioner, the notice provided that the taxable value for the property in 2020 was $110,000-an increase in $50,993 from 2019. The notice contained a section titled, "March Board of Review Information," stating that petitioner could appeal the various values by "filing a protest with the Local Board of Review" and providing information on how to do so. Petitioner did not appeal the 2020 assessment to the March Board of Review or the July Board of Review.
As noted by the MTT, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Executive Order 2020-87 expanded the authority of the July Board of Review "to hear protests under Section 30 of the [General Property Tax Act], MCL 211.30, and any other matters that are properly before a March board of review under MCL 211.30."
On August 11, 2020, petitioner filed a petition in the MTT, disputing the property's 2020 taxable value. Respondent filed an answered to the petition, requesting that the MTT dismiss the appeal because petitioner failed to appeal the assessment to the March Board of Review or the July Board of Review. The MTT granted respondent's request and entered an order dismissing the petition because petitioner "failed to protest the assessment to Respondent's Board of Review, as required by MCL 205.735a." Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal, which the MTT denied. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner argues the MTT erroneously concluded it lacked jurisdiction over her appeal. We disagree.
If fraud is not alleged, the MTT's decision is reviewed "for misapplication of the law or adoption of a wrong principle." Wexford Med Group v City of Cadillac, 474 Mich. 192, 201; 713 N.W.2d 734 (2006). The interpretation and application of statutes are legal issues this Court reviews de novo. See Danse Corp v City of Madison Hts, 466 Mich. 175, 178; 644 N.W.2d 721 (2002). Whether the MTT has jurisdiction is an issue this Court also reviews de novo. Kasberg v Ypsilanti Twp, 287 Mich.App. 563, 566; 792 N.W.2d 1 (2010).
"The Tax Tribunal Act, MCL 205.701 et seq., grants the [MTT] exclusive jurisdiction to decide various property tax matters based on 'either the subject matter of the proceeding . . . or the type of relief requested . . . .'" In re Petition of Wayne Co Treasurer for Foreclosure, 286 Mich.App. 108, 110-111; 777 N.W.2d 507 (2009), quoting Wikman v City of Novi, 413 Mich. 617, 631; 322 N.W.2d 103 (1982). MCL 205.731 specifically provides that the MTT "has exclusive and original jurisdiction over . . . [a] proceeding for direct review of a final decision, finding, ruling, determination, or order of an agency relating to assessment, valuation, rates, special assessments, allocation, or equalization, under the property tax laws of this state." MCL 205.731(a).
Petitioner argues that MCL 205.731 gives the MTT exclusive and original jurisdiction over her challenge to respondent's assessment of her property's taxable value. However, the broad grant of jurisdiction provided by MCL 205.731 must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Tax Tribunal Act, namely, in this case, MCL 205.735a. See Tyrell v Univ of Michigan, Mich. App, ; N.W.2d (2020) (Docket No. 349020); slip op at 7 ("[T]he statute must be read as a whole, giving consideration to the statute's placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.") (quotation marks and citations omitted). MCL 205.735a(3) provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section or by law, for an assessment dispute as to the valuation or exemption of property, the assessment must be protested before the board of review before the [MTT] acquires jurisdiction of the dispute under subsection (6)." (Emphasis added). Thus, a property owner wishing to challenge the valuation or assessment of his or her property must first pursue a protest before the local Board of Review. Failure to do so precludes a property owner from properly invoking the MTT's jurisdiction over the assessment dispute.
Accordingly, the MTT correctly dismissed the petition in this case. Petitioner did not protest the assessment of the property's taxable value to the local Board of Review. As a result, the MTT did not have jurisdiction over the assessment. MCL 205.735a(3).
Petitioner also notes the Supreme Court's decision in Mich Props, LLC, 491 Mich. at 524-525, which held in the consolidated case of Toll Northville Limited Partnership v Northville Township, that the MTT has
the authority to reduce an unconstitutional previous increase in taxable value for purposes of adjusting a taxable value that was timely challenged in a subsequent year. The Tax Tribunal Act sets forth the Tax Tribunal's jurisdiction. Once its jurisdiction is properly invoked, the Tax Tribunal possesses the same powers and duties as those assigned to a March board of review under the [General Property Tax Act], including the duty to adjust erroneous taxable values to bring the current tax rolls into compliance with the GPTA. [Emphasis added.]
As discussed, however, petitioner failed to timely challenge the assessment to the Board of Review and therefore did not properly invoke the MTT's jurisdiction. Thus, petitioner's reliance on Mich Props, LLC, is misplaced.
Affirmed.