Randie Lawrence v. City of Roseville ( 2024 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
RANDIE LAWRENCE, UNPUBLISHED
August 1, 2024
Petitioner-Appellant,
v No. 367232
Tax Tribunal
Small Claims Division
CITY OF ROSEVILLE, LC No. 22-002998
Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and RICK and N. P. HOOD, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Randie Lawrence, appeals by right the Michigan Tax Tribunal’s final opinion
and judgment denying her request for a poverty exemption from her 2022 property tax obligation.
Petitioner failed to establish that her household income fell below the applicable poverty threshold.
We therefore affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
This tax dispute arises out of petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption from her 2022
property tax obligation. Petitioner owns a parcel of real property in Roseville, Michigan (the
Property). Respondent assessed the Property’s 2022 assessed and taxable values at $54,800 and
$30,588, respectively. Petitioner challenged the assessment before respondent’s board of review,
arguing that she qualified for a poverty exemption from her 2022 property tax obligation.
Respondent’s board of review denied petitioner’s request, citing her failure to provide sufficient
evidence to establish that she qualified for a poverty exemption.
Petitioner appealed the board of review’s decision to the Michigan Tax Tribunal (the Tax
Tribunal). She argued that respondent previously granted a poverty exemption from her 2021
property tax obligation, her financial means had not changed, and she had gathered additional
evidence in support of her request for a poverty exemption. Petitioner presented as evidence a
notarized letter from her mother, Trina C. Lawrence (Trina). Trina attested that she paid
petitioner’s bills, which typically amounted to $200 to $350 for electrical utilities, $100 to $250
for gas utilities, $150 to $250 for water utilities, $100 for phone service, $100 for insurance
-1-
premiums, and $100 for tax payments. Trina also attested that she paid “any other bills that
[petitioner] may receive for that month[,]” and assisted petitioner with other expenses, such as
“gas, clothing, grooming, toiletries, etc.”
After a hearing, the Tax Tribunal denied petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption from
her 2022 property tax obligation. The Tax Tribunal considered Trina’s financial assistance when
calculating petitioner’s income. It reasoned that petitioner failed to definitively establish her
income because “financial contributions of an unspecified amount but possibly in excess of the
established income limit are available to [petitioner] for the payment of bills.” This appeal
followed.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
This Court’s review of a decision by the Tax Tribunal is “very limited.” Drew v Cass Co,
299 Mich App 495, 498; 830 NW2d 832 (2013) (citation omitted). Unless fraud is alleged, this
Court reviews a Tax Tribunal decision for a “misapplication of the law or adoption of a wrong
principle.” Hardenbergh v Dep’t of Treasury, 323 Mich App 515, 520; 917 NW2d 765 (2018)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). The Tax Tribunal’s factual findings “will not be disturbed
as long as they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole
record.” Drew, 299 Mich App at 499 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Substantial
evidence must be more than a scintilla of evidence, although it may be substantially less than a
preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “To the extent that
our review requires the interpretation and application of a statute, that review is de novo.” Power
v Dep’t of Treasury, 301 Mich App 226, 230; 835 NW2d 622 (2013) (quotation marks and citations
omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
Petitioner argues that the Tax Tribunal erred by denying her request for a poverty
exemption from her 2022 property tax obligation. We disagree.
Under the General Property Tax Act (GPTA), MCL 211.1a et seq., “all property, real and
personal, within the jurisdiction of this state, not expressly exempted, shall be subject to taxation.”
MCL 211.1. “Because taxation is the rule and exemption from taxation the exception, the burden
is on the [petitioner] to establish the right to a tax exemption.” Campbell v Dep’t of Treasury, 509
Mich 230, 238; 984 NW2d 13 (2022) (citation omitted). The petitioner must establish, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that they are entitled to the requested exemption. Spranger v
Warren, 308 Mich App 477, 479; 865 NW2d 52 (2014).
-2-
Section 7u of the GPTA provides the poverty exemption. See MCL 211.7u. See also
Smith v Twp of Forester, 323 Mich App 146, 150; 913 NW2d 662 (2018). The statute states, in
relevant part:1
(1) The principal residence of a person who, in the judgment of the
supervisor and board of review, by reason of poverty, is unable to contribute toward
the public charges is eligible for exemption in whole or in part from the collection
of taxes under this act. This section does not apply to the property of a corporation.
(2) To be eligible for exemption under this section, a person shall . . . do all
of the following on an annual basis:
* * *
(e) Meet the federal poverty guidelines published in the prior calendar year
in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services under its authority to revise the poverty line under 42 USC 9902, or
alternative guidelines adopted by the governing body of the local assessing unit
provided the alternative guidelines do not provide income eligibility requirements
less than the federal guidelines. [MCL 211.7u.]
Respondent adopted by ordinance the poverty level standards set by the federal
government. See Roseville Code § 304-3(B)(5) (“The income of all property owners . . . must not
be more than that amount set by the Federal Government in its poverty level standards.”). The
poverty guidelines published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for
the 2021 tax year identified an annual income of $12,880 as the poverty line for a household of
one in the contiguous United States. Federal Register, Annual Update of the HHS Poverty
Guidelines <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021-01969/annual-update-
of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines> (accessed July 12, 2024). The poverty guidelines were derived
from the United States Census Bureau’s official poverty thresholds that vary by family size and
composition. Id. The United States Census Bureau uses multiple sources of income when
computing poverty status, including “[a]ssistance from outside the household” and “[o]ther
miscellaneous sources.” United States Census Bureau, How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty
<https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html>
(accessed July 12, 2024). In other words, to qualify for the poverty exemption under MCL 211.7u,
a single person must have an income of 12,880 or less, including any assistance they receive from
outside of the household.
Here, the Tax Tribunal did not err by denying petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption.
In her application for a poverty exemption, petitioner stated that “family contribution[s]” were her
1
MCL 211.7u was amended by 2023 PA 191, effective November 7, 2023. Because petitioner
applied for the 2022 poverty exemption prior to the amendment, we consider the statutory language
in effect at the time of her application, recognizing that the amendment did not alter the substance
of the statutory subparts at issue in this appeal.
-3-
sole source of income. She presented as evidence a notarized letter from Trina, who attested that
she paid petitioner’s bills, which typically totaled between $750 and $1,150 each month.2 Trina
also attested that she paid “any other bills that [petitioner] may receive for that month[,]” and
assisted petitioner with other expenses, such as “gas, clothing, grooming, toiletries, etc.” The Tax
Tribunal held that petitioner failed to establish that her income fell below the applicable poverty
threshold because she failed to present evidence of the specific amount she received in family
income contributions. We agree. Although Trina attested that she paid petitioner’s monthly bills,
which typically totaled between $750 and $1,150, she also attested that she paid other bills and
expenses without specifying the value of either one. The Tax Tribunal correctly concluded that
these other bills could place petitioner’s income above the poverty threshold. Because petitioner
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her income fell below the federal
poverty line, the Tax Tribunal did not err by denying petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Tax Tribunal did not err by denying petitioner’s request for a poverty exemption
because petitioner failed to establish that her income fell below the federal poverty line. We affirm.
/s/ Michael J. Riordan
/s/ Michelle M. Rick
/s/ Noah P. Hood
2
Petitioner argues that the Tax Tribunal erred by incorrectly stating that petitioner’s water bill was
calculated monthly, when it was actually calculated quarterly. To the extent that the Tax Tribunal
erred in this regard, the error was not outcome-determinative. Whether petitioner’s water bill was
calculated monthly or quarterly, the Tax Tribunal did not reach a conclusion regarding petitioner’s
total income. Instead, the Tax Tribunal concluded that it could not definitely calculate petitioner’s
income because Trina’s contributions remained unspecified. Even if petitioner’s water bill was
calculated quarterly, she failed to establish that her income fell below the applicable poverty
threshold.
-4-