City of Monroe v. Richard Janssens, 329527

Background

City of Monroe (petitioner) asked the State Tax Commission (STC) under MCL 211.154 to correct assessments for ~78 acres previously claimed as tax-exempt under MCL 211.7s for tax years 2009–2011, alleging the lessee farmed the land for profit.
STC dismissed the petition in May 2013 because the property had been sold, concluding the change of ownership precluded the requested correction.
Petitioner appealed the STC decision to the Michigan Tax Tribunal under MCL 211.154(7), then moved for summary disposition; the Tribunal instead granted judgment for respondent for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under MCR 2.116(I)(2).
The Tribunal and the Court of Appeals construed MCL 211.154(7) as granting an appeal to the Tribunal only to the person "to whom property is assessed" under that section (i.e., the taxpayer), not to a taxing authority like the city.
Petitioner also argued the statute’s limitation violated Const 1963, art 6, § 28 (right to appellate review), claiming denial of constitutional appellate review; the Court rejected that claim, holding the city represented public, not private, interests and retained other remedies (e.g., circuit court review where provided by law).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCL 211.154(7) gives the Tax Tribunal jurisdiction to hear petitioner’s appeal from the STC	City: MCL 211.154(7) should allow the taxing authority to appeal STC decisions; statute should be read in harmony with MCL 205.735a(6)	Respondent/STC: 211.154(7) plainly grants appeal rights only to the person to whom property is assessed (taxpayer); other statutes govern assessment disputes and board-of-review protest requirements	Court held MCL 211.154(7) unambiguously limits appeals to taxpayers; Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper
Whether MCL 211.154 should be read coextensively with MCL 205.735a(6) to permit the city’s appeal	City: 205.735a(6) grants Tribunal jurisdiction in assessment disputes and should apply	Respondent: 205.735a(6) governs invocation mechanics and generally requires prior board-of-review protest; MCL 211.154 is the specific statute and controls	Court held the statutes serve different purposes; 211.154 controls here as the more specific provision
Whether limiting appellate review under MCL 211.154(7) violates article 6, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution	City: Denial of Tribunal appeal prevents constitutionally guaranteed direct appellate review of STC decisions affecting its rights	Respondent: City represents a public taxing authority, not a private right-holder; article 6 § 28 protects private rights and the Legislature may prescribe appeal mechanics	Court held no constitutional violation: petitioner asserts public, not private, rights; Legislature may define appeal routes and other remedies (e.g., circuit court) may apply
Whether the Tribunal should reach the merits of the exemption question (MCL 211.7s)	City: Tribunal should decide whether religious exemption was improperly applied	Respondent: Tribunal lacked jurisdiction; merits should not be reached	Court declined to reach merits because it affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Briggs Tax Serv, LLC v Detroit Pub Sch, 485 Mich 69 (2010) (standard for reviewing Tax Tribunal legal conclusions)
Trostel, Ltd v Dep’t of Treasury, 269 Mich App 433 (2006) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
Phillips v Mirac, Inc, 470 Mich 415 (2004) (constitutional questions reviewed de novo)
Superior Hotels, LLC v Mackinaw Twp, 282 Mich App 621 (2009) (construction and scope of MCL 211.154; limited application to reporting/omitted property)
Autodie, LLC v City of Grand Rapids, 305 Mich App 423 (2014) (interpreting MCL 211.154 as addressing taxpayer reporting errors)
Electronic Data Systems Corp v Flint Twp, 253 Mich App 538 (2002) (MCL 205.735a described as jurisdictional statute governing invocation of Tax Tribunal jurisdiction)
McAvoy v H B Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419 (1977) (Legislature controls mechanics of administrative appeals under Const art 6, § 28)
Midland Cogeneration Venture Ltd Partnership v Naftaly, 489 Mich 83 (2011) (private-right concept; appeals of STC decisions to circuit court where law does not provide other administrative route)
Fox v Bd of Regents of the Univ of Mich, 375 Mich 238 (1965) (court will not reach merits when jurisdiction is lacking)