GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO V CITY OF ST CLAIR SHORES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 19, 2002
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 234856
Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00-270141
CITY OF ST CLAIR SHORES,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Petitioner appeals as of right from a tax tribunal order dismissing its petition challenging
its property tax assessment for 1999. We reverse and remand. This appeal is being decided
without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
As part of the prehearing procedure, the parties were directed to submit a valuation
disclosure. They failed to do so because they had agreed to settle the case. On the same day the
stipulation for entry of a consent judgment was sent to the tribunal, the tribunal entered a default
for failure to file the valuation disclosure. The tribunal later determined that a judgment could
not be entered on the stipulation as submitted1 and ordered the parties to file a motion to set aside
the default previously entered. They failed to do so and the tribunal dismissed the petition.
Our review of a decision of the Tax Tribunal is typically limited to
whether the decision was authorized by law and whether the tribunal’s findings
were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole
record. Although the Tax Tribunal has the authority to dismiss a petition for
failure to comply with its rules or orders, the tribunal’s actions in that regard are
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion exists where the
result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it indicates a
perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias.
[Professional Plaza, LLC v Detroit, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2002).]
1
We find no error in the tribunal’s rejection of the stipulation because it included a proposed
amendment of the petition. 1996 AACS, R 205.1225(2), now 1999 AC, R 205.1225(2), permits
amendment of the pleadings as provided by the act or by leave of the tribunal and pursuant to
MCL 205.737(4), a motion (and appropriate filing fee) were required to amend the petition.
-1-
While we are at a loss to understand petitioner’s failure to respond to the order directing
it to cure the default or take other action so as to avoid dismissal, the tribunal’s decision to
impose “the harshest sanction available” for failure to file a valuation disclosure that was no
longer required and thus deprive petitioner of relief from the 1999 tax assessment to which
respondent had consented constituted an abuse of discretion. Stevens v Bangor Twp, 150 Mich
App 756, 762; 389 NW2d 176 (1986).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
