Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.744 (2026)
Intervention or impleading.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TAX TRIBUNAL ACT
Act 186 of 1973
205.744 Intervention or impleading.
Sec. 44.
(1) Except for petitions filed under chapter 6, the tax tribunal may permit the intervention or impleading of any governmental unit which receives tax funds from the petitioner who is making the appeal.
(2) If a petition is filed under chapter 6, the tribunal may permit the intervention or impleading of a state or local governmental unit or officer thereof or of any person or other entity upon a showing of a material monetary interest in the decision of the tribunal which is not likely to be adequately presented by the parties to the proceeding.
History: 1973, Act 186, Eff. July 1, 1974 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 365, Imd. Eff. Dec. 23, 1976
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1977–2013 · leading case: Jefferson Schs. v. Detroit Edison Co., 397 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
Jefferson Schs. v. Detroit Edison Co., 397 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “t property involved herein or a person "whose property was assessed”, and, in the absence of lawful authority allowing Petitioner to challenge another person’s property assessment, this Petitioner is not a party in interest and has no standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the…”
Northwood Apts. v. City of Royal Oak, 296 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “The respondent School District contends that the Tax Tribunal erred in denying its motion to intervene. It is contended that the motion should have been granted as- of right and, in the alternative, that the Tribunal abused its discretion in denying the motion.”
Consumers Power Co. v. Big Prairie Twp., 265 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “We reject this argument by virtue of § 44, MCLA 205.744; MSA 7.650(44), which allows the intervention or impleading by a local governmental unit upon a showing of monetary interest in the proceedings.”
Kistner v. Milliken, 432 F. Supp. 1001 (E.D. Mich. 1977). “§ 205.744. Appeals from final orders and decisions by the Tribunal may be had as of right to the Michigan court of appeals, M.”
Thrifty Royal Oak, Inc v. City of Royal Oak, 344 N.W.2d 305 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983). “The claim is two-pronged: (1) intervention under MCL 205.744; MSA 7.650(44) is of right whenever the school district seeks to intervene before the hearing and decision of the Tax Tribunal, and (2) if intervention is discretionary, the tribunal abused its discretion.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Oak Park Sch. Dist., 370 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Therefore, we hold that intervention by a school district in a proceeding before the Tax Tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.744; MSA 7.650(44) is a discretionary matter for the tribunal.”
Sal-Mar Royal Vill., LLC v. Macomb Cnty. Treasurer, 836 N.W.2d 236 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). “See MCL 205.744. Defendant argues that when the litigation was initiated in 2007 it was for an assessment, and plaintiff had yet to become delinquent on its taxes.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 205.744(1) — 2 cases
Jefferson Schs. v. Detroit Edison Co., 397 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “t property involved herein or a person "whose property was assessed”, and, in the absence of lawful authority allowing Petitioner to challenge another person’s property assessment, this Petitioner is not a party in interest and has no standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the…”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Oak Park Sch. Dist., 370 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “Therefore, we hold that intervention by a school district in a proceeding before the Tax Tribunal pursuant to MCL 205.744; MSA 7.650(44) is a discretionary matter for the tribunal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.