Half Pipe LLC v. Township of Livingston, 329197

Background

Half Pipe, LLC owns vacant commercial property that petitioner claims was overvalued for tax purposes.
Deed prepared by petitioner’s attorney had an incorrect address; tax notices were mailed to that wrong address and petitioner did not receive them.
After contacting the township assessor, petitioner received a faxed copy of the 2013 assessment on March 6, 2014, then sought relief at the March 2014 Board of Review and, after denial, filed an appeal with the Michigan Tax Tribunal on May 23, 2014.
The parties stipulated to a consent judgment resolving 2014 and 2015 assessments, but disputed the Tribunal’s authority to adjudicate the 2013 assessment because petitioner’s Tax Tribunal appeal was filed more than 35 days after receiving the faxed notice.
The Tax Tribunal denied relief for 2013 as untimely under MCL 205.735a(6) (and referenced MCL 211.27b(6)), concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the 2013 assessment; it entered the stipulated judgment only for 2014–2015.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the class of cases and erred by refusing to enter the parties’ full stipulated consent judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tax Tribunal lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to grant relief for 2013 because appeal was filed beyond 35 days after notice	Filing within 35 days requirement is jurisdictional but petitioner argued notice was not received and he promptly acted once he learned of assessment	Respondent argued petitioner received notice (by fax) and missed the statutory 35-day window, depriving Tribunal of jurisdiction over 2013	Court held the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the class of cases and erred by refusing to enter the parties’ stipulated consent judgment covering 2013; reversed and remanded to enter the stipulated judgment
Whether the Tribunal’s refusal to enter a stipulated consent judgment is permissible if parts of the judgment arguably exceed procedural timing requirements	A consent judgment agreed by parties should be enforceable even if procedural defects exist, because consent disposes of claims before the tribunal	Respondent maintained statutory timing barred relief for 2013, so Tribunal could not grant relief for that year	Court held a tribunal may enter a consent judgment in a case properly before it even if some elements would otherwise exceed procedural limits; Tribunal erred in refusing to enter the stipulated consent judgment
Applicability of MCL 211.27b(6) to valuation dispute	Petitioner treated the dispute as valuation (not a transfer or arithmetic error)	Respondent invoked MCL 211.27b(6) among statutes	Court noted MCL 211.27b(6) is inapplicable because it addresses transfers/arithmetic errors, not valuation disputes
Standard of review for jurisdictional and statutory interpretation questions	N/A (procedural)	N/A (procedural)	Court reviewed jurisdictional and statutory interpretation issues de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence; concluded error was refusing stipulated consent judgment

Key Cases Cited

Michigan Properties LLC v. Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518 (2012) (standard of review for Tax Tribunal legal and factual determinations)
Electronic Data Systems Corp v. Twp of Flint, 253 Mich App 538 (2002) (timing requirements in MCL 205.735 are jurisdictional)
Parkview Mem. Ass’n v. City of Livonia, 183 Mich App 116 (1990) (invocation/perfection of tribunal jurisdiction concept)
Joy v. Two-Bit Corp, 287 Mich 244 (1939) (distinguishing abstract subject-matter jurisdiction from case-specific power)
Clohset v. No Name Corp, 302 Mich App 550 (2013) (consent judgments and distinctions between lack of jurisdiction and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction)
Sidun v. Wayne Co Treasurer, 481 Mich 503 (2008) (constitutional issues and review standards)
Steiner School v. Ann Arbor Twp, 237 Mich App 721 (1999) (standard for reviewing existence of subject-matter jurisdiction)