WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER V MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER,
UNPUBLISHED
February 12, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
MICHIGAN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY
and DTE ENERGY COMPANY, a/k/a DETROIT
ENTERPRISE, INC.,
No. 241730
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-143307-CZ
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Cavanagh and White, JJ.
SCHUETTE, P.J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with my colleagues that the circuit court did not err in applying the primary
jurisdiction doctrine in the present case and in denying summary disposition to plaintiff.
However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the trial court erred in
granting MichCon’s cross-motion for summary disposition. I would affirm the decision of the
trial court.
Although the trial court did not specify which subsection of MCR 2.116(C) it was relying
on when it denied plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and granted MichCon’s crossmotion for summary disposition, this Court’s review under subsection (C)(10) is appropriate
because the trial court reviewed and relied on matters outside the pleadings in arriving at its
decision on the motions. Driver v Hanley (After Remand), 226 Mich App 558, 562; 575 NW2d
31 (1997). Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), summary disposition is granted when “there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as
a matter of law.” Under MCR 2.116(I)(2), “[i]f it appears to the court that the opposing party,
rather than the moving party, is entitled to judgment, the court may render judgment in favor of
the opposing party.”
The trial court properly granted MichCon summary disposition pursuant to MCR
2.116(C)(10). We find there is no genuine issue of material fact that the tribunal ruled that the
STC’s new multiplier tables were lawful and have been incorporated into the official assessor’s
manual. Additionally, under the plain and ordinary meaning of MCL 211.10e, the tribunal’s
opinion, and under case law, plaintiff was required to use the tables provided in the official
assessor’s manual as a guide in arriving at the TCV of MichCon’s personal property, or provide
other evidence used to arrive at a different TCV. Here, plaintiff provided absolutely no proof
-1-
that it utilized any evidence other than the “outdated” repudiated multiplier tables that it was not
permitted to use.
In the present case, the tribunal found that “[a] local unit is not free to disregard [the new
multiplier tables] and apply a substitute table.” It determined that “[a] local assessing official has
no authority to adopt and apply as a mass appraisal tool a multiplier table other than the latest
tables included in the official Assessor’s Manual or other manual provided by the STC.” The
tribunal concluded that “the methodology used by the STC to develop and construct [the new
multiplier tables] for use as a mass appraisal tool to value and assess regulated public utility
[transmission and distribution] property does not constitute an error of law or adoption of a
wrong principle” and it incorporated these tables into the official assessor’s manual.
MCL 211.10e provides the following:
All assessing officials, whose duty it is to assess real or personal property
on which real or personal property taxes are levied by any taxing unit of
the state, shall use only the official assessor’s manual or any manual
approved by the [STC], consistent with the official assessor’s manual,
with their latest supplements, as prepared or approved by the [STC] as a
guide in preparing assessments.
“A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the court is obliged to ascertain and
give effect to the intention of the Legislature, and it is equally axiomatic that words are to be
given their ordinary, normally accepted meaning.” Joy Management Co, supra, 730. Under the
plain and unambiguous language of MCL 211.10(e), assessors must use the multiplier tables
promulgated by the STC and incorporated into the assessor’s manual as a guide in setting
assessments on personal property. The new multiplier tables must neither be flagrantly
disregarded nor casually ignored by tax assessors. Therefore, as the tribunal in the STC case
held, local assessors are required to use the STC’s new multiplier tables that have been
incorporated into the assessor’s manual in preparing tax assessments, unless evidence of a
different [TCV] is apparent, in which case a party may deviate from the manual. Washtenaw Co
v State Tax Comm, 422 Mich 346, 351 n 1; 373 NW2d 697 (1985); Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp
v City of Warren, 193 Mich App 348, 353, 356; 483 NW2d 416 (1992). Ultimately, the TCV of
the property controls the tax assessment. Washtenaw Co, supra, 364-365.
In the present case, the trial court repeatedly asked plaintiff if it had any market data or
any other evidence that supported its tax assessments, aside from the “outdated” repudiated
multiplier tables it used to arrive at the TCV. Plaintiff claimed that it had “ample” other
evidence but that it was not within the trial court’s jurisdiction to view this evidence. However,
the trial court was not seeking to make an independent determination whether this other evidence
was sufficient, it only sought to enforce the tribunal’s ruling that other evidence must be
presented if plaintiff chooses not to use the new multiplier tables in the assessor’s manual in
assessing MichCon’s personal property taxes. Plaintiff did not present any other evidence and
thus there is no data to support plaintiff’s refusal to apply the statutorily mandated STC
multiplier tables in this case. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary disposition in
favor of MichCon and dismissed the case; there are no “delinquent” taxes to collect, as MichCon
has already paid taxes in an amount properly calculated using the new STC multiplier tables
from the assessor’s manual.
-2-
I would affirm the grant of MichCon’s cross-motion for summary disposition.
/s/ Bill Schuette
-3-
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.