RAVENNA CASTINGS CENTER V RAVENNA TWP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RAVENNA CASTINGS CENTER,
UNPUBLISHED
May 6, 2004
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 242286
Michigan Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00-288443
TOWNSHIP OF RAVENNA,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Jansen and Murray, JJ.
O’CONNELL, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, this petition was timely filed under MCL 211.53a
and, therefore, the Michigan Tax Tribunal (MTT) has jurisdiction to hear this dispute. I would
remand this matter to the MTT for a decision on the merits.
MCL 211.53a reads as follows:
Any taxpayer who is assessed and pays taxes in excess of the correct and lawful
amount due because of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact made by the
assessing officer and the taxpayer may recover the excess so paid, without
interest, if suit is commenced within 3 years from the date of payment,
notwithstanding that the payment was not made under protest.
A clear reading of the statute provides that if a mutual mistake has occurred then a
taxpayer may recover the taxes paid “if suit is commenced within 3 years from the date of
payment.” Id. In the present case, the township admits that both it and the taxpayer made a
rudimentary blunder with regard to petitioner’s taxes. In fact, the township agreed to repay
petitioner the excess taxes. Unfortunately, however, the township has spent the funds and now
lacks the funds to accomplish this task.
In a case such as this, when both parties agree a mutual mistake has occurred, in my
opinion, the mistake falls within the clear, plain language of the statute. The majority’s
hypertechnical definition of “mutual mistake” contorts the phrase’s plain meaning, making it
inapplicable to a factual situation where the Legislature certainly intended it to apply. I conclude
that when both parties admit that a simple mistake has been made, the MTT has jurisdiction to
hear the merits of a case brought within three years pursuant to the plain language in MCL
-1-
211.53a. At the very least, petitioner should have the right to develop the facts to establish that a
mutual mistake has occurred.
I would remand this case to the MTT for further proceedings.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.
