Gaylord Development West v. Township of Livingston, 329506

Background

Petitioners Edgewood Holdings, L.L.C. and Gaylord Development West (represented by attorney David Delaney) filed single‑sentence "claim of appeal" letters with the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) on May 27–28, 2015, seeking review of local boards of review valuation determinations.
The MTT clerk issued "Notice[s] of No Action," explaining that a petition on the tribunal form (or in substantial compliance) and a filing fee were required to invoke jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a and MTT rules.
Delaney replied that the statutory requirement is only a "written petition" and that his prior practice of filing similar single‑sentence appeals was sufficient to invoke the MTT's jurisdiction.
On July 1, 2015, Delaney filed conforming petitions with fees, but the MTT dismissed them as untimely because the May filings did not meet the tribunal's petition requirements.
The MTT relied on its rules (TTR 219, 221, 227, 277) requiring either a tribunal form or substantial compliance and concluded it lacked equitable power to excuse late filing; Judge Lasher denied reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the clerk did not abuse discretion in rejecting the defective initial filings and that the MTT permissibly enforced its rules and statutory deadline.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Delaney's single‑sentence "claim of appeal" satisfied the statutory requirement to invoke MTT jurisdiction	The May filings were "written petitions" under MCL 205.735a and thus timely	The filings failed to meet MTT petition form/pleading requirements and so did not invoke jurisdiction	Held for defendant: the one‑sentence filings did not satisfy tribunal rules and did not invoke jurisdiction
Whether the MTT clerk abused discretion by issuing "Notice of No Action" and refusing to accept the filings	Clerk should have accepted the filings because statute requires only a "written petition"; past practice shows acceptance	Clerk reasonably enforced MTT rules requiring form or substantial compliance and fee	Held for defendant: clerk did not abuse discretion in enforcing petition rules
Whether the MTT could excuse or equitably toll the filing deadline after rejecting the initial filings	Statute controls; equitable tolling unnecessary because initial filings suffice	MTT lacks equitable power to waive statutory deadlines; rules must be followed	Held for defendant: MTT properly dismissed subsequently filed petitions as untimely; no waiver available
Whether prior informal acceptance by the MTT prevents enforcement of the amended 2013 rules	Prior practice bound the tribunal to accept similar filings	MTT amended rules in 2013 and publicized changes; practitioners expected to follow current rules	Held for defendant: prior practice does not preclude enforcement of promulgated rules

Key Cases Cited

President Inn Props, LLC v. Grand Rapids, 291 Mich. App. 625 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (limits appellate review of MTT decisions)
Mich. Milk Producers Ass'n v. Dep't of Treasury, 242 Mich. App. 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000) (appellate scope of review for tribunal legal error)
Wexford Med. Group v. City of Cadillac, 474 Mich. 192 (Mich. 2006) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
Professional Plaza, LLC v. Detroit, 250 Mich. App. 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (abuse of discretion review for dismissals under tribunal rules)
Rock v. Crocker, 499 Mich. 247 (Mich. 2016) (standard for abuse of discretion)