Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


TIMOTHY R. LEAHY, Petitioner-Appellant, v ORION TOWNSHIP, Respondent-Appellee.

FOR PUBLICATION January 24, 2006 9:10 a.m. No. 255431 Tax Tribunal LC No. 00-297551 Official Reported Version

Before: Donofrio, P.J., and Borrello and Davis, JJ. PER CURIAM. Petitioner appeals as of right a residential property tax valuation judgment of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. We affirm. Between 1998 and 2002, petitioner substantially remodeled his existing residence. Respondent therefore reassessed the taxable value of the property. In 2002, petitioner sued respondent in the circuit court to challenge the 2002 assessment, asserting that it should have been $116,222 rather than $137,910. The circuit court dismissed the action because it lacked jurisdiction, and this Court affirmed. Leahy v Orion Twp, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 14, 2004 (Docket No. 250406). Petitioner subsequently appealed his 2003 property tax assessment to the board of review, again asserting that it had been incorrectly calculated. After the board of review rejected his appeal, he timely filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal to challenge the state equalized value and assessed taxable value. Among other findings, the tribunal agreed that respondent had erroneously computed the 2003 taxable value and reduced it to $149,422, "determined by taking the 2002 taxable value of $137,910, adjusting it 1.5% for [the] 2003 [consumer price index], then adding to the result the addition of $9,444 (one-half of the true cash value of the property added during 2002)." However, the tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the 2000 through 2002 assessments because petitioner had failed to appeal his assessment in said years [2000 through 2002]; therefore, those years are not currently before the Tribunal. As a general rule, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to revise a property's taxable value with respect to tax years not properly before it. An exception to this rule is set forth in MCL 211.53a . . . . In the instant case, however, the mistake, if any, in Respondent's determination of

-1-


the subject property's taxable value for 2000 - 2002 was not the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact; thus the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over those tax years, and no revisions may be made to the taxable values set forth by Respondent. In his request for rehearing or reconsideration, petitioner argued that the tax code requires property taxes to be based on the prior year's assessed value, so the prior year's value must be the correct value. Petitioner suggests on appeal that because the tribunal found that respondent had erred in the 2003 assessment, respondent must recognize its errors for the years 2000 through 2002, correct those assessments, and then recompute the 2003 taxable value. Petitioner also seeks a refund of any amount paid in excess of that required by the corrected assessments for 2000 through 2002.1 Our review of Tax Tribunal decisions is limited: Absent fraud, this Court's review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle. The tribunal's factual findings are upheld unless they are not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. Substantial evidence must be more than a scintilla of evidence, although it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the evidence. Failure to base a decision on competent, material, and substantial evidence constitutes an error of law requiring reversal. [Meijer, Inc v City of Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5; 610 NW2d 242 (2000) (citations omitted).] Petitioner cannot be aggrieved by the tribunal's finding that respondent erroneously computed the 2003 assessment. Rather, petitioner challenges the 2003 assessment to the extent that it remains premised on an incorrect starting point. Thus, petitioner argues that the 2003 assessment remains erroneous because it was computed on the basis of the 2002 taxable value of $137,910. However, this challenge presents a collateral attack on a matter that is no longer subject to litigation. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue in a new action arising between the same parties or their privies when the earlier proceeding resulted in a valid final judgment and the issue in question was actually and necessarily determined in that prior proceeding. See People v Gates, 434 Mich 146, 154; 452 NW2d 627 (1990); 1 Restatement Judgments, 2d,

Download TIMOTHY R LEAHY V ORION TWP.pdf

Michigan Law