Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rema Village Mobile Home Park v. Ontwa Township
Citations: 748 N.W.2d 896; 278 Mich. App. 169; 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 512Docket: Docket 276506
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; March 11, 2008; Michigan; State Appellate Court
Petitioner Rema Village Mobile Home Park appeals a Tax Tribunal order denying its motion for a refund related to an invalid special assessment imposed by Ontwa Township for a municipal sewer system. The Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding the special assessment invalid because it did not confer a special benefit on the property, although this ruling did not explicitly remand the case back to the Tax Tribunal. Following this, the petitioner filed a motion in the Tax Tribunal seeking to cancel the assessment, obtain a refund with interest, eliminate monthly sewer fees, and recover legal expenses. The Tax Tribunal denied the motion, claiming it lacked jurisdiction as the Court of Appeals had not remanded the case. The petitioner contends this was an error, referencing MCR 7.215(F)(1)(b), which grants the Tax Tribunal jurisdiction to enforce the appellate court's judgment. The Court of Appeals agrees with the petitioner, emphasizing that the motion was effectively a request to enforce its prior decision. The Court vacates the Tax Tribunal's order and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling. The Tax Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to enforce the Court's decision based on the language of MCR 7.215(F)(1)(b), despite the Court not explicitly remanding the case. The Tribunal incorrectly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the enforcement issue. While the petitioner's motion may have exceeded the scope of the Court's decision, the Tribunal was granted authority to enforce that decision, which mandated enforcement. The Court vacated the Tax Tribunal's order denying jurisdiction and reiterated its authority over enforcement proceedings, remanding the case for further action. The petitioner's request for legal expenses due to alleged obstruction by the Tribunal and respondent was denied, as no legal authority was cited to support this claim. The case is remanded for consistent enforcement proceedings, and the Court does not retain jurisdiction. It is noted that the Tribunal mistakenly believed it needed a specific remand to have jurisdiction.