Spranger v. City of Warren
308 Mich. App. 477
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Karen Spranger applied to the City of Warren board of review for a 2012 poverty exemption on her residential property; her application listed sources (Bridge Card, DHS utility assistance) but did not show dollar amounts for those benefits.
- The board scheduled a special hearing for March 22, 2012; petitioner attended the board’s published regular sessions (Mar 19–21) but did not appear on Mar 22 because she was not given written notice of the special hearing.
- The board denied the application as "incomplete" for lack of specific income amounts; petitioner appealed to the Michigan Tax Tribunal (Tribunal).
- At the Tribunal hearing petitioner attempted to present additional evidence; the Tribunal found she failed to prove specific income amounts and denied the exemption.
- The Court of Appeals majority held the board’s oral notice was constitutionally insufficient (no written notice despite knowing petitioner’s address), which deprived petitioner of a meaningful hearing; because the Tribunal cannot decide constitutional claims, the remedy is remand to the Tribunal for a de novo proceeding that cures the procedural defect and allows supplementation of evidence.
- A dissent agreed the board’s notice was inadequate but would have affirmed because the Tribunal later conducted a de novo hearing and petitioner still failed to prove eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether board’s failure to give written notice of special hearing violated procedural due process and MCL 211.30(3) | Spranger: she received no written notice and thus lacked a meaningful opportunity to be heard | Warren: oral notice (telephone or in-person) was given; petitioner attended board sessions and should have known hearing procedures | Court: board’s oral notice constitutionally insufficient; statutory and due-process violation requires remedy |
| Whether the Tribunal could consider petitioner’s constitutional claim and cure the board’s procedural error | Spranger: Tribunal lacked ability to remedy board’s procedural due-process failure unless given a fresh de novo proceeding with adequate notice | Warren: Tribunal held a de novo hearing and denied relief; that hearing cured any board error | Court: Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate constitutional defects of board’s procedures; remedy is remand for Tribunal to conduct independent de novo review after providing proper notice and opportunity to supplement evidence |
| Whether petitioner met burden to prove entitlement to poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u by showing income meets poverty guidelines | Spranger: incomplete application was due to lack of chance to present specifics; she should be allowed to supplement and prove eligibility | Warren/Tribunal: petitioner failed to provide dollar amounts of assistance and other necessary proof, so exemption cannot be granted | Court: remand required so petitioner can supplement evidence and the Tribunal can decide de novo whether preponderance of evidence shows eligibility |
| Appropriate remedy for board’s procedural/due-process violation | Spranger: remand for new Tribunal hearing with proper notice and opportunity to present evidence | Warren: denial should stand because Tribunal already heard case de novo and petitioner failed to prove eligibility | Court: reverse board, vacate Tribunal judgment, and remand to Tribunal for de novo consideration with proper notice and ability to supplement evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Sietsema Farms Feeds, LLC v Dep’t of Treasury, 296 Mich. App. 232 (tax exemptions strictly construed in favor of taxing authority)
- ProMed Healthcare v Kalamazoo, 249 Mich. App. 490 (petitioner bears burden to prove entitlement to exemption by preponderance)
- Nicholson v Birmingham Bd of Review, 191 Mich. App. 237 (Tax Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction and de novo review after board denial)
- McMorran v Wright, 74 Mich. 356 (board of review may take testimony under oath)
- Brandon Twp v Tomkow, 211 Mich. App. 275 (constitutional protection for property owners re tax assessment/collection)
- Cummings v Wayne Co, 210 Mich. App. 249 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Fisher v Muller, 53 Mich. App. 110 (board must give personal notice by mail when petitioner’s address is known)
- WPW Acquisition Co v City of Troy (On Remand), 254 Mich. App. 6 (Tax Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutional questions)
- Johnston v Livonia, 177 Mich. App. 200 (remedy and procedures when local board commits procedural error)
- Kostyu v Dep’t of Treasury, 170 Mich. App. 123 (procedural errors by board may require remand)
- Heindlmeyer v Ottawa Co Concealed Weapons Licensing Bd, 268 Mich. App. 202 (de novo proceedings contemplate new evidence and testimony)
- Great Lakes Div of Nat’l Steel Corp v Ecorse, 227 Mich. App. 379 (Tax Tribunal must make independent determination and not simply accept board findings)