Fisher-New Center Co. v. City of Detroit
| Decision Date | 25 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | FISHER-NEW,Docket Nos. 11950--3 and 11954--5,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 197 N.W.2d 272,38 Mich.App. 750 |
| Parties | CENTER COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. CITY OF DETROIT, a Michigan Municipal corporation, and Board of Education of the City of Detroit, Defendants-Appellants.CENTER COMPANY, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, a body politic, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Michael M. Glusac, Corp. Counsel, Julius C. Pliskow and Lawrence W. Morgan, Asst. Corp. Counsels, Detroit, for City of Detroit.
John L. Belanger, Ostrowski, Wilson, Belanger & Boman, Detroit, for Bd. of Ed.
William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Aloysius J. Suchy and William F. Koney, Asst. Pros. Attys., for County of Wayne.
Jason L. Honigman, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and J. H. GILLIS and Van VALKENBURG, * JJ.
From the entry of a summary judgment (pursuant to GCR 1963, 117) in favor of the plaintiff in each of six cases which had been consolidated in recognition of their common issues, defendants bring this appeal.
Following the assessment by defendants of real property taxes against plaintiff for the years 1966, 1967, and 1968, an appeal was taken to the State Tax Commission (hereafter designated as STC) pursuant to § 152 of The General Property Tax Act (M.C.L.A. § 211.152; M.S.A. § 7.210). Subsequently, and in compliance with § 53 of The General Property Tax Act (M.C.L.A. § 211.53; M.S.A. § 7.97) plaintiff, following the payment under protest of said assessed taxes, instituted suits in the circuit court for refund. The common allegation of the plaintiff in the several complaints was as follows:
'Plaintiff avers that said assessment valuation, and the resultant assessments and tax levied against the property here involved, were far in excess of the applicable ratio of assessment to true cash value under the law of the State of Michigan in such case made and provided; were and are excessive and discriminatory and based upon wrong principles of assessments; that thereby plaintiff was over-assessed, deprived of its property without due process of law, and denied the equal protection of the law.'
The STC's determination (which affirmed the taxing authorities' position) was then appealed directly to the Supreme Court upon grant of petition to bypass the Court of Appeals. In Fisher-New Center Co. v. Michigan State Tax Commission, 380 Mich. 340, 157 N.W.2d 271 (1968), rev'd on rehearing, 381 Mich. 713, 167 N.W.2d 263 (1969), the Court held invalid, because unrelated to true cash value, the formulas by which the plaintiff's real property had been assessed by the City of Detroit and the STC. In December, 1970, the STC rescheduled for hearing and determination both the assessments involved in the earlier appeal and also the assessments which had in the meantime been made by defendants and appealed by the plaintiff. 1 As a result of said hearings, the STC, on January 22, 1971, issued formal orders determining the lawful assessment of the plaintiff's property for the years in question. Each of the several orders included a determination as to both the true cash value of the plaintiff's property and the prevailing ratio or level of assessment in the City of Detroit for the applicable year. None of the STC orders was appealed by either side.
Plaintiff then filed its motion for summary judgment in the instant consolidated circuit court actions based upon the unappealed revised assessments contained in the STC's decisions and orders. In response to said motion, defendants, although admitting the finality of the STC's findings regarding the true cash value, disputed the Commission's determinations as to average levels of assessment. Partial summary judgments were entered on April 30, 1971 as to the uncontested portion of the refund accruing to plaintiff resulting from the STC's redetermination of the true cash value. Proceedings were then held on the contested portion of the refund claims resulting in the entry on May 14, 1971, of supplemental summary judgments in favor of the plaintiff pursuant to the STC's determination regarding the average levels of assessment. At the hearing on the motion for supplemental summary judgment, defendants introduced four affidavits in opposition to said motion, all of which alleged that the STC had made an error of law or had adopted wrong principles in arriving at the average level of assessment for the City of Detroit.
In lieu of these charges defendants bring this appeal claiming the circuit judge was in error in concluding he did not have jurisdiction to consider defendants' allegations, and, hence, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, thereby denying a trial on said issue. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the trial court was correct in ruling that the defendants had not pursued their appeal of the STC's decision through the proper channels (I.e., to the Court of Appeals), that the decision must be regarded as final in that court, it having no jurisdiction to review the matter. Therefore, plaintiff concludes there being no other material issue of fact presented so as to preclude the entry of a summary judgment, the circuit judge was not in error in doing so.
Public Act 270 of 1969 amended § 152 of The General Property Tax Act (M.C.L.A. § 211.152; M.S.A. § 7.210) by providing that the 'contested case' provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 (M.C.L.A. §§ 24.271--24.287; M.S.A. § 3.560 (171--187)) are inapplicable to the STC, and that 'in its determination, article VI, section 28, of the constitution of the state of Michigan shall apply.' Section 28 provides that '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.' Thus, the standard of review from an STC determination has been established--its decision is final unless fraud, error of law, or misapplication of principles is demonstrated. As for the avenues of review that are open to a particular entity, resort must be had to the applicable statutes for such a determination.
At the outset, a basic distinction must be recognized between the position of the two different entities who would seek to appeal from an STC determination. While the Legislature has given Taxpayers alternative remedies--of either (1) appealing to the STC (pursuant to § 152 of The General Property Tax Act, M.C.L.A. § 211,152; M.S.A. § 7.210) and/or (2) paying the tax under protest and suing in the circuit court for refund 2 (pursuant to § 53 of the General Property Tax Act, M.C.L.A. § 211.53; M.S.A. § 7.97)--it has not expressly provided such alternative remedies to the taxing authorities. Section 53 of The General Property Tax Law is solely a remedy grated to a taxpayer. Nothing in said section authorizes a taxing entity to use such a proceeding. Hence, the only remedy provided under the statute for a taxing authority that is aggrieved by a decision of the STC is to prosecute an appeal to the appellate courts of this State. None of the cases cited by the appellants nor any that have been found by this Court support the argument that the assessing entities have a remedy under section 53. Said cases deal solely with the scope of a Taxpayer's right to bring a circuit Court suit under § 53 of the Act for recovery of allegedly excessive taxes. Moreover, the decisions make clear that even the taxpayer is bound by a STC determination in the absence of proof of fraud, error of law, or application of wrong principles.
Perhaps the confusion over the applicability of § 53 results from the fortuitous circumstance that although § 152 of The General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wikman v. City of Novi
...265 N.W.2d 182 (1978); Mohawk Data Sciences Corp. v. Detroit, 63 Mich.App. 102, 234 N.W.2d 420 (1975); Fisher-New Center Co. v. Detroit, 38 Mich.App. 750, 197 N.W.2d 272 (1972).6 M.C.L. Sec. 205.721; M.S.A. Sec. 7.650(21) provides in part:"The tax tribunal is created and is a quasi-judicial......
-
Consumers Power Co. v. Big Prairie Tp., Newaygo County
...circuit court (§ 53) action is in the nature of a retrial of issues previously decided by the STC. Cf. Fisher-New Center Co. v. Detroit, 38 Mich.App. 750, 197 N.W.2d 272 (1972). Therefore, the statutory scheme permits circuit court decisions which conflict with those of the STC." 63 Mich.Ap......
-
Saginaw County v. State Tax Commission
...1969. 14 Republic Development Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 38 Mich.App. 166, 195 N.W.2d 923 (1972), and Fisher-New Center Co. v. Detroit, 38 Mich.App. 750, 197 N.W.2d 272 (1972), held that § 152, as amended, of the general property tax act 15 exempted the STC from the contested case provi......
-
Baker v. Michigan State Tax Commission, Docket No. 12985
...State Tax Commission is final unless fraud, error of law, or misapplication of principles is demonstrated. Fisher-New Center Co. v. Detroit, 38 Mich.App. 750, 197 N.W.2d 272 (1972). The tax in question is based on M.C.L.A. § 211.181; M.S.A. § 7.7(5), which provides, in part, as 'When any re......