No. 138168, 138179, 138182

Click to view briefs in Adobe format:

138168, 138179, 138182 - Petitioner-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>

138168, 138179, 138182 - Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
138168, 138179, 138182 - Appellants' Reply Brief>>

138168, 138179, 138182 - Respondent-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>

138168 - Respondents-Appellants' Reply Brief>>

138168 - Building Office Managers Association of Metropolitan Detroit's Amicus Curiae Brief>>

138179 - Respondent-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>

138182 - Respondent-Appellant's Reply Brief>>

Background
          In 1993, voters in the Detroit Public School District approved a 32.25 mill school operating property tax renewal. This millage granted Detroit Public Schools (DPS) the authority to levy this tax until June 30, 2002. On March 15, 1994, Michigan voters approved Proposal A, a school finance reform proposal. Under Proposal A, local school district voters must approve school operating taxes; Proposal A precludes local school districts from levying more than 18 mills in property taxes. Unexpired millages authorized before January 1, 1994 are deemed to have been validly approved under Proposal A.
On June 30, 2002, voter approval for the DPS millage expired, but DPS continued to levy an 18-mill tax for 2002, 2003 and 2004. When DPS later concluded that Proposal A did not indefinitely authorize the 18-mill tax levy, it published a notice to bondholders acknowledging that the taxes levied for years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were levied without voter authorization and that the revenue from these taxes may have to be refunded.
          Briggs Tax Service filed a claim in the Tax Tribunal against DPS, the Detroit Board of Education, the city of Detroit, and the Wayne County Treasurer, seeking a refund for property taxes paid pursuant to the illegal tax levy. Briggs filed its complaint as a class action; more than 100 other cases were filed. After discovery, DPS and the other respondents moved for summary disposition, asking the Tax Tribunal to dismiss Briggs’ complaint. The Tax Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over Briggs’ claims, the respondents argued, because Briggs had not filed its complaint within 30 days of when the tax was levied, as required by the Tax Tribunal Act (MCL 205.735). Briggs countered that its claim was governed by MCL 211.53a, which provides for a three-year limitation period for claims involving mutual mistake of fact made by the assessing officer and the taxpayer. The Tax Tribunal agreed with the respondents and dismissed Briggs’ case. The error regarding the legality of the tax levy was a question of law, not a mistake of fact, the tribunal ruled; accordingly, the 30-day limit applied to bar Briggs’ claims. Briggs appealed; in a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the Tax Tribunal for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals concluded that the mistake over the collection of the unapproved tax levy was a mutual mistake of fact such that the three-year statute of limitations applied, rather than the 30-day limit; hence, the Tax Tribunal did have jurisdiction over Briggs’ case, the appellate court said. Respondents DPS, the Detroit Board of Education, the city of Detroit, and the Wayne County Treasurer appeal.

Top of Page

Get the latest version of Internet Explorer. Some of the files on this site are PDF files. To view PDF files, you need Acrobat Reader. Download your free copy here.

Technical questions about this site should be sent to webinfo@courts.mi.gov.
Questions about the content on this site should be sent to msc-info@courts.mi.gov.