CENTRE MANAGEMENT V CITY OF FERNDALE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CENTRE MANAGEMENT,
UNPUBLISHED
August 10, 2004
Petitioner-Appellant,
v
No. 248266
Tax Tribunal
LC No. 00-290579
CITY OF FERNDALE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In this action concerning the taxation of commercial property, petitioner Centre
Management appeals as of right the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s (MTT) “order denying petitioner’s
motion for summary disposition [and] sua sponte order of dismissal.” We affirm. This appeal is
being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This action arises from the revision of the taxable value of petitioner’s commercial
property that was built in 1941. By letter dated October 26, 2001, respondent notified petitioner
that “[a] substantial clerical error at the time of data input had [sic] resulted in ‘omission’ of a
section of the industrial building” at issue here. The letter indicated that the mistake had been
corrected and that the “Board of Review will meet on December 11, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. … to
correct Assessment Rolls for year 2000 and 2001 ….” The letter notified petitioner that any
objections to the listed changes could be protested to the Board at the December meeting.
Petitioner failed to protest to the Board of Review at the December meeting, and
apparently at that time the taxable value for petitioner’s property was retroactively raised from
$262,940 to $334,580 for 2000, and from $271,350 to $345,280 for 2001. In March 2002,
petitioner requested the State Tax Commission (STC) to “roll back” the changed assessments.
However, on April 29, 2002, the STC indicated that it lacked jurisdiction. Thereafter, petitioner
filed a petition with the MTT. On February 14, 2003, petitioner moved for summary disposition,
claiming that respondent raised the taxable value of petitioner’s commercial property in excess
of the limits found in MCL 211.27a.1 The MTT denied petitioner’s motion for summary
1
Respondent maintained that the increase in taxable value was due to an omission of a part of
(continued…)
-1-
disposition and, sua sponte, dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal
ensued.
Petitioner raises four separate issues on appeal. We begin with the jurisdictional issues.
Petitioner argues that the MTT has jurisdiction under MCL 211.154, MCL 205.735(2), and MCL
205.731, to review STC decisions. We disagree.
This Court’s review of MTT decisions is limited. Michigan Milk Producers Ass’n v
Dep’t of Treasury, 242 Mich App 486, 490; 618 NW2d 917 (2000). Absent a claim of fraud, we
may determine only whether the MTT committed an error of law or adopted a wrong legal
principle. Id.; Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 229 Mich App 200, 206; 581
NW2d 770 (1998). This Court will not disturb the tribunal’s factual findings if they are
supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Michigan Milk
Producers Ass’n, supra at 490-491. Additionally, we review de novo statutory interpretation.
Id. at 491.
The MTT has exclusive and original jurisdiction to review final decisions relating to
assessments or valuations under the property tax laws. MCL 205.731(a). An assessment dispute
concerning the valuation of property must be protested before the local board of review before
the MTT can acquire jurisdiction. MCL 205.735(1); Covert Twp v Consumers Power Co, 217
Mich App 352, 355; 551 NW2d 464 (1996); Manor House Apartments v City of Warren, 204
Mich App 603, 604-605; 516 NW2d 530 (1994). Once a court determines that it has no
jurisdiction, it should not proceed further except to dismiss the action. Fox v Bd of Regents of
the Univ of Michigan, 375 Mich 238, 243; 134 NW2d 146 (1965); Electronic Data Systems Corp
v Flint Twp, 253 Mich App 538, 544-545; 656 NW2d 215 (2002). Here, petitioner did not
protest to the Board of Review at the December meeting. Thus, the MTT cannot acquire
jurisdiction. MCL 205.735(1); Covert Twp, supra; Manor House, supra.
To the extent that petitioner argues that the STC has the authority to correct the increase
in taxable value set by a Board of Review for incorrectly reported and/or allegedly omitted
property, we disagree. This Court has interpreted MCL 211.154 to allow assessments to be
corrected only if a property's status is misrepresented, such as when a taxpayer incorrectly
claimed that the property was tax-exempt. City of Detroit v Norman Allan & Co, 107 Mich App
186, 191-192; 309 NW2d 198 (1981) (MCL 211.154 “applies when property has been
incorrectly reported as exempt property but is thought to be ... taxable property. The issue in
such cases is the proper status of the property, whether it is amendable to taxation in the first
place.”); see also General Motors Corp v State Tax Comm, 200 Mich App 117, 119-120; 504
NW2d 10 (1993). Thus, MCL 211.154 did not confer jurisdiction on the STC to correct an
assessor's error in mistakenly undervaluing the property in previous years because MCL 211.154
does not apply to property conceded to be taxable but alleged to be improperly assessed.
(…continued)
the building resulting from a clerical error at the time of data input, MCL 211.53b, not the result
of uncapping of taxable value, MCL 211.27a. Respondent provided the appraiser’s hand-written
notes that show the correct dimensions and calculation of total area of 5786 square feet, whereas
the data input shows the dimension of 75 x 20, which equals 1500 square feet.
-2-
Because neither the STC nor the MTT had jurisdiction, petitioner’s petitions were
properly dismissed. Electronic Data Systems, supra. Further, in light of our conclusions, we
need not address petitioner’s other arguments on appeal.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.