DENNIS DUBUC V GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DENNIS DUBUC,
UNPUBLISHED
June 27, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 194641
MTT
LC No. 211310
GREEN OAK TOWNSHIP,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Reilly, P.J., and Hood and Murphy, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right an order of the Michigan Tax Tribunal denying his request for a
reduction in the assessed value of his property. We affirm.
I
Plaintiff argues that the tribunal erred when it refused his request for a reduction in the assessed
value of his property. Plaintiff claims that certain court orders barring occupancy of plaintiff’s property
have reduced the true value of that property. We disagree.
“[T]he standard of review to be applied to a decision of the Tax Tribunal is deferential.”
Colonial Townhouses Cooperative v Lansing, 171 Mich App 593, 596; 431 NW2d 237 (1988).
This Court “may not grant the . . . requested relief on appeal unless the decision below resulted from
fraud, errors of law, or the adoption of wrong principles.” Id.
Plaintiff’s argument is premised on appraisals of his property. The tribunal refused to consider
those appraisals because plaintiff, contrary to the requirements of the notice of hearing, failed to provide
them to the tribunal and to defendant at least t n days before the hearing. The record on appeal
e
consists of only those exhibits which the tribunal accepted below. Exhibits not accepted below may not
be considered on appeal. See Banta v Serban, 370 Mich 367, 368 n 1; 121 NW2d 854 (1963);
People v DeJonge, 179 Mich App 225, 236 n 1; 449 NW2d 899 (1989). Thus, because the tribunal
refused to consider the appraisals, we likewise will not consider them, and there is no basis for plaintiff’s
argument.
-1
Because plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the tribunal’s decision “resulted from fraud, errors of
law, or wrong principles,” the decision below must be affirmed. Colonial Townhouses, supra, 596.
II
Plaintiff next argues that the tribunal should have accepted the appraisals and that, even without
them, the value of the property is obviously reduced by the court orders barring occupancy. We
disagree.
Plaintiff provides no authority for the notion that the requirements set forth in the notice of
hearing simply could be ignored. Further, he provides no argument for the notion that this Court simply
should overlook the fact that he had the burden of proof. MCL 205.737(3); MSA 7.650(37)(3).
Affirmed.
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ William B. Murphy
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.