Court Opinion

ID: 9738572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:56:39.771713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.977010
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree with the majority that a remand is necessary to determine whether the statutory notice requirements were met. I believe that the majority misreads the notice requirements when it holds that plaintiffs’ allegation of "no personal notice” is sufficient to challenge their individual assessments.
MCL 41.726; MSA 5.2770(56) provides for notice by publication (which is not in issue here) and for the notice required by MCL 41.724a; MSA 5.2770(54a). The latter section provides:
"Notice of hearings in special assessment proceedings shall be given to each owner of, or party in interest in property to be assessed, whose name appears upon the last township tax assessment records, by mailing by ñrst class mail addressed to the owner or party at the address shown on the tax records, at least 10 days before the date of the hearing.” (Emphasis added.)
*119I believe that the township’s duty of giving notice under this section is discharged upon the act of mailing notice. This section does not require receipt of the notice.
The receipt requirement read into the statute by the majority would place an impossible burden upon an assessing township: no special assessment could ever be final unless a township could prove that each affected individual received "personal notice”. Under today’s holding an individual need only allege that notice was not received in order to escape the statute of limitations and challenge a duly confirmed assessment. In order to ensure finality, a township would have to have each affected person "personally” served with notice and a sworn return available for proof. This result could not have been contemplated when the Legislature required notice "by mailing by first class mail * *
A conclusion that only mailing is required is supported by MCL 41.724a(4); MSA 5.2770(54a)(4). It states, in part: "The method of giving notice by mail as provided in this section is declared to be the method that is reasonably certain to inform those to be assessed of the special assessment proceedings.” (Emphasis added.)
Subsection (5) is also consistent with this reading: "Failure to give notice as required in this section shall not invalidate an entire assessment roll but only the assessment on property affected by the lack of notice.” (Emphasis added.) The giving of notice as required in this section is, again, mailing by first class mail.
Therefore, I conclude that an allegation of no receipt is not a sufficient challenge; an individual must allege a failure to meet the statutory requirements, Le., a failure to mail notice to him.
*120Plaintiffs do not state a claim sufficient to challenge the validity of the confirmation: They admit in paragraph 8 of their petition to the Tax Tribunal that notice of the January 8, 1977, public meeting was published in a local newspaper and mailed by ñrst class mail. Further, defendant has submitted the affidavit of its clerk to the effect that such notice was duly mailed and published. Since plaintiffs’ claim of "no receipt” is insufficient to challenge the statutory notice requirements of the confirmation, their petition, filed some 17 months after the confirmation, was not timely.
I would affirm the Tax Tribunal’s order granting defendant accelerated judgment.