Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

CHAND MARWAHA, Petitioner-Appellant, v CITY OF ROSEVILLE, Respondent-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2011

No. 299546 Tax Tribunal LC No. 00-355031

Before: WILDER, P.J., and TALBOT and SERVITTO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner appeals as of right from the final opinion and judgment of the Michigan Tax Tribunal denying petitioner's small claims petition protesting a property's assessed true cash value (TCV) and taxable value (TV). We affirm. Prior to the scheduled hearing on the petition, petitioner submitted his evidence to the tribunal and to respondent's agent, as required by tribunal rules. Respondent submitted its evidence to the tribunal and to petitioner himself but did not, however, submit any evidence to petitioner's counsel, who had been listed as petitioner's agent or counsel on petitioner's petition. The hearing on the petition was held with petitioner present, but with respondent absent due to its request to be heard on the file. According to petitioner, his counsel objected at the hearing to the admission of respondent's evidence based on respondent's failure to submit a copy of the same to counsel. Also according to petitioner, the tribunal refused to hear this objection because respondent was not present to respond to it. Ultimately, the tribunal found that petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof because the appraisals he submitted "lack[ed] credibility, because all the comparables chosen were bank-owned, and Petitioner did not provide evidence to indicate that [the] sales were arm'slength and subject to normal market conditions." There was no explicit mention of petitioner's objection to the inclusion of respondent's evidence, but the final opinion and judgment does note that "[t]he Tribunal considered the other issues raised by Petitioner and did not consider them worthy of merit." On appeal, petitioner first alleges that the tribunal abused its discretion by failing to exclude respondent's appraisal evidence. We disagree. -1-

The trial court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 488; 596 NW2d 607 (1999). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court selects an outcome falling outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Maldonado v Ford Motor Co, 476 Mich 372, 388; 719 NW2d 809 (2006). Under tribunal rules, parties are required to file and serve evidence on the opposing party. TTR 320(3). Further, any pleadings and documents filed with the tribunal must be served concurrently to the opposing party's authorized representatives, if a party has such an authorized representative. TTR 208(5). Failure to comply with this subrule may result in the exclusion of the valuation disclosure or other written evidence at the time of the hearing because the opposing party or parties may have been denied the opportunity to adequately consider and evaluate the evidence before the date of the scheduled hearing. [Emphasis added.] TTR 320(3). In this case, it is undisputed that respondent failed to deliver its appraisal evidence to petitioner's counsel as required by the tribunal rules. However, the clear and unambiguous language of TTR 320(3) makes the exclusion of evidence submitted to the tribunal in violation of TTR 320(3) permissible, but not mandatory. Though petitioner's attorney was not personally served, the record shows that petitioner was not prejudiced by what appears to have been an inadvertent omission. The tribunal's final opinion and judgment recounts numerous challenges raised by petitioner's counsel to respondent's valuations. These challenges were focused on specifics of the various appraisals such as with square footage and recent remodeling of the homes, indicating a solid familiarity with the contents of those appraisals and sufficient time to prepare challenges to their reliability and accuracy before the tribunal. Given that counsel adequately considered and evaluated the evidence then posed numerous challenges to the same, despite not having been served with the evidence, the tribunal did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. Petitioner next argues that the tribunal erred by finding that his appraisal evidence was not reliable (i.e., that he did not meet his burden of proof) and by accepting respondent's valuation of petitioner's property rather than making an independent determination of true cash value. We disagree. "In the absence of fraud, error of law or the adoption of wrong principles, no appeal may be taken to any court from any final agency provided for the administration of property tax laws from any decision relating to valuation or allocation." Const 1963, art 6,

Download CHAND MARWAHA V CITY OF ROSEVILLE.pdf

Michigan Law