COA 372991 DE ANN BENETTI V CITY OF DETROIT Opinion - Per Curiam - Unpublished 1/9/2026

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
DE ANN BENETTI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
UNPUBLISHED
January 09, 2026
1:41 PM
v No. 372991
Tax Tribunal
CITY OF DETROIT, LC No. 24-003346
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and REDFORD and RICK, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, De Ann Benetti, appeals as of right the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s order
dismissing her claim challenging her 2024 property tax assessment; the order also denied her
motion for reconsideration of the Tax Tribunal’s earlier order dismissing her challenge to her 2023
property tax assessment. We affirm.
I. FACTS
Petitioner owns real property at 3539 Concord in Detroit. On February 15, 2024,
petitioner’s representative wrote a letter to the City of Detroit’s Office of the Assessor, requesting
review and adjustment of the taxable value of the property for 2023 and 2024. The letter explained
that petitioner had purchased the property in 2023, that petitioner had not received a property tax
assessment notice for 2023, and that she first learned of the property tax assessment when she
received the 2023 summer tax bill for the property. The letter argued that the true cash value of
the property should be adjusted from $321,800 to $91,270.
Petitioner’s protest was heard by the City’s 2024 March Board of Review with regard to
the 2024 tax assessment. The Board of Review reduced the state equalized value (SEV) and
taxable value of the property for 2024 to $104,700.
On May 23, 2024, petitioner filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal seeking review of the
property tax assessment for the property for 2023 and 2024. The Tax Tribunal dismissed in part
petitioner’s claims, stating in relevant part:

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
The Tribunal has reviewed the file in the above-captioned case and finds that
Petitioner is appealing assessments for prior tax years and the Tribunal has no
authority over those assessments under MCL 205.735a, as the petition was not
timely filed. Further, the Tribunal also has no authority over those assessments, as
the facts alleged do not establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical
error (i.e., “an error of a transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or
a mutual mistake of fact (i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on
by both parties”). Rather, the facts alleged indicate a valuation dispute that does
not involve the correction of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact. [Citations
omitted]
The Tax Tribunal dismissed petitioner’s claim related to the 2023 tax assessment, but permitted
the appeal to continue with regard the 2024 tax assessment.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration by letter to the Tax Tribunal requesting that the 2023
property tax assessment be reduced to $104,700, the amount to which the 2024 Board of Review
reduced the property assessment for 2024. The Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration and dismissed petitioner’s petition in its entirety. The Tax Tribunal held that it
did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim regarding the 2023 property assessment because
petitioner did not timely protest the property tax assessment to the March 2023 Board of Review,
and because the claim otherwise did not involve a clerical error or a mutual mistake of fact. The
Tax Tribunal also dismissed petitioner’s claim regarding the 2024 property tax assessment, finding
that petitioner’s valuation of the property was in agreement with the reduced property assessment
established by the 2024 Board of Review, and thus no matter remained in controversy regarding
the 2024 assessment. Petitioner now appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner contends that the Tax Tribunal erred by finding that it did not have jurisdiction
over her challenge to the 2023 property tax assessment. We disagree.
Our review of a decision of the Michigan Tax Tribunal is limited. Mich Props, LLC v
Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518, 527; 817 NW2d 548 (2012). Absent fraud, we review a decision of
the Tax Tribunal for a misapplication of the law or the adoption of a wrong principle. Liberty Hill
Housing Corp v City of Livonia, 480 Mich 44, 49; 746 NW2d 282 (2008). We deem the findings
of the Tax Tribunal to be conclusive if supported by “competent, material, and substantial evidence
on the whole record.” Id., citing Const 1963, art 6, § 28. When analyzing whether the Tax Tribunal
properly interpreted and applied the statutes governing its jurisdiction, our review is limited to
“determining whether the Tax Tribunal committed an error of law in its interpretation and
application of the statutes,” which is a question of law subject to our de novo review. New Covert
Generating Co, LLC v Twp of Covert, 334 Mich App 24, 45; 964 NW2d 378 (2020).
The Tax Tribunal is a quasi-judicial agency with exclusive jurisdiction over certain
proceedings involving Michigan’s property tax laws. Id. at 52. Our Supreme Court recently
explained:

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
Pursuant to MCL 205.735a(3), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section or by
law, for an assessment dispute as to the valuation or exemption of property, the
assessment must be protested before the board of review before the tribunal
acquires jurisdiction of the dispute under subsection (6).” Subsection (6), in turn,
states that the jurisdiction of the [Michigan Tax Tribunal] in various types of
assessment disputes, including those regarding commercial personal property, “is
invoked by a party in interest, as petitioner, filing a written petition” by a specific
deadline. MCL 205.735a(6). Finally, the [Michigan Tax Tribunal] has exclusive
and original jurisdiction over review of a final decision of an agency, such as the
Board, relating to assessment or valuation. MCL 205.731(a). [Sixarp, LLC v Twp
of Byron, ___ Mich ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 166190); slip op
at 10.]
Our Supreme Court further explained that the Tax Tribunal “has no equitable power to
waive or otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline,” such as the requirement
that an assessment challenge be raised first before a Board of Review, unless the petitioner
demonstrates that failure to hear the challenge deprives the petitioner of the petitioner’s
constitutional right to due process. Id. at ___; slip op at 14.
In this case, in its final order the Tax Tribunal stated, in relevant part:
In the motion [for reconsideration], Petitioner states they did not receive a 2023
assessment despite purchase date not being at issue. Petitioner became aware of
the assessment amounts upon receiving the 2023 summer tax bill during summer
2023. Petitioner filed a protest and was heard by the 2024 March Board of Review
(BOR). The BOR acted on 2024 but told Petitioner to appeal 2023 to the Tribunal.
* * *
[T]he Tribunal has no authority over the 2023 tax year under MCL 205.735a
because Petitioner failed to protest the disputed assessment to the March Board of
Review and file a petition with the Tribunal on or before July 31, 2023. The
Tribunal also has no authority under MCL 211.53a because the facts alleged do not
establish that the assessments were the result of a clerical error (i.e., “an error of a
transpositional, typographical, or mathematical nature”) or a mutual mistake of fact
(i.e., “an erroneous belief, which is shared and relied on by both parties”). And
although MCL 211.53b provides July and December boards of review with the
authority to correct qualified errors, Petitioner did not appear before Respondent’s
July or December Board of Review or appeal an action taken by any such board.
Petitioner contends that they did not receive notice of the values until the arrival of
tax bill in summer 2023. Even assuming Petitioner’s contention to be true,
Petitioner thereafter failed to file their appeal to the tribunal within 35 days of actual
notice as required by MCL 205.735a(6). Instead, Petitioner filed an appeal to the
2024 March BOR. However, that BOR has no authority over the assessment for
prior tax years. The Tribunal cannot accept the appeal from the 2024 March BOR
as timely for a 2023 claim because the Tribunal’s authority is limited to that of the

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
BOR. As such, and inasmuch as the Tribunal has no equitable power to waive or
otherwise disregard a statutory requirement or filing deadline, it has no authority to
grant Petitioner the relief requested.
Given the above, Petitioner failed to demonstrate a palpable error relative to the
order that misled the Tribunal and the parties and that would have resulted in a
different disposition if the error was corrected.
The Tribunal further finds that Petitioner’s motion states that the subject’s 2024
value, as established by the 2024 March BOR, aligns with Petitioner’s contention
of value. As such, the Tribunal finds that there is no matter in controversy for the
2024 tax year, and dismissal of the 2024 appeal is appropriate. [Citations omitted]
On appeal, petitioner identifies certain exceptions to the statutory requirement that a
challenge to a property tax assessment first be protested to the Board of Review, allowing instead
for direct appeal to the Tax Tribunal in certain circumstances. See MCL 205.735a(4). Petitioner,
however, does not demonstrate that the facts of this case fall within the statutory exceptions
identified, nor is there any indication that petitioner complied with the filing requirements
applicable to those exceptions, see MCL 205.735a(6), or indeed even raised this argument before
the Tax Tribunal. Similarly, petitioner states the standard that the Tax Tribunal is to apply when
considering a motion for reconsideration, but does not demonstrate that the Tax Tribunal in this
case failed to properly consider petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
We find no error in the Tax Tribunal’s determination that it lacked jurisdiction over
petitioner’s challenge to the 2023 tax assessment. The record indicates that petitioner did not
timely protest the 2023 assessment to the Board of Review, thereby depriving the Tax Tribunal of
jurisdiction under MCL 205.735a(3) and (6). See Sixarp, LLC, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 15. In
addition, petitioner has not demonstrated that the failure of the Tax Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction
in this case deprived her of her right to due process. See id. at ___; slip op at 16-19. We also agree
with the Tax Tribunal that the record indicates that petitioner does not dispute the reduced
valuation applied to the property by the 2024 Board of Review. Because there is no dispute
regarding the reduced 2024 assessment, the Tax Tribunal did not err by dismissing petitioner’s
claim regarding the 2024 tax assessment.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael F. Gadola
/s/ James Robert Redford
/s/ Michelle M. Rick

-- 4 of 4 --