Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 211 / Act 206 of 1893

Mich. Comp. Laws § 211.53a

Recovery of excess payments not made under protest.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE GENERAL PROPERTY TAX ACT


Act 206 of 1893


211.53a Recovery of excess payments not made under protest.

Sec. 53a.

    Any taxpayer who is assessed and pays taxes in excess of the correct and lawful amount due because of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact made by the assessing officer and the taxpayer may recover the excess so paid, without interest, if suit is commenced within 3 years from the date of payment, notwithstanding that the payment was not made under protest.

History: Add. 1958, Act 209, Eff. Sept. 13, 1958

PopularName Notes:

Act 206
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Ford Motor Company v. City of Woodhaven
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ford Motor Company v. City of Woodhaven (2006) mich · cites it 153× “These cases call on this Court to interpret the meaning and applicability of the phrase "mutual mistake of fact" as it is used in MCL 211.53a. In each of these cases, petitioner Ford Motor Company (Ford) filed a personal property statement with the appropriate taxing…”
Briggs Tax Service, LLC v. Detroit Public Schools (2010) mich · cites it 23× “The dispute in this case concerns whether respondent’s wrongful collection of property taxes from petitioner constitutes a mutual mistake of fact within the meaning of MCL 211.53a. If the assessing officer and petitioner made a mutual mistake of fact, the three-year limitations…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Bruce Township (2004) michctapp · cites it 86× “On February 19, 2002, petitioner filed its petition for review pursuant to MCL 211.53a for recovery of excess tax payments not made under protest.”
Leahy v. Orion Township (2006) michctapp · cites it 2× “An exception to this rule is set forth in MCL 211.53a.... In the instant case, however, the mistake, if any, in Respondent’s determination of the subject property’s taxable value for 2000 - 2002 was not the result of a clerical error or mutual mistake of fact; thus the Tribunal…”
Wolverine Steel Co. v. City of Detroit (1973) michctapp · cites it 12× “It further claimed that, under MCLA 211.53a; MSA 7.97(1), [1] it could recover the money paid because the incorrect payment had been made as the result of a "mutual mistake of fact made by the assessing officer and the taxpayer".”
Briggs Tax Service, LLC v. Detroit Public Schools (2008) michctapp · cites it 10× “1211 by levying, collecting, or receiving the illegal levy (count I), that a mutual mistake of fact occurred under MCL 211.53a (count III), and that city ordinances precluded illegal and unjust taxes (count VI).”
Spoon-Shacket Co. v. County of Oakland (1959) mich · cites it 4× “Should we so decide by majority vote, it would become unnecessary to consider effect, retroactive or otherwise, of the pendente legislative enactment to which counsel refer in their brief (PA 1958, No 209, § 53a [CL 1948, § 211.53a (Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 7.97[1])]), [******]…”
Michigan Properties, LLC v. Meridian Township (2012) mich “See Briggs Tax Serv, LLC v Detroit Pub Sch, 485 Mich 69 ; 780 NW2d 753 (2010) (holding that refund claims for previously paid taxes are subject to a 30-day limitations period unless a mutual mistake of fact occurred); see also MCL 211.53a (setting forth a three-year limitation…”
Noll Equipment Co v. City of Detroit (1973) michctapp · cites it 4× “See MCLA 211.53a; MSA 7.97(1). Plaintiff argues that the question of the immunity of the imported steel from taxation is a factual question to which that doctrine properly applies.”
Eltel Associates, LLC v. City of Pontiac (2008) michctapp · cites it 6× “In March 2004, petitioner filed a petition requesting a refund of the 2002 property taxes pursuant to MCL 211.53a, based on a mutual mistake of fact.”
Upper Peninsula Generating Co. v. City of Marquette (1969) michctapp · cites it 2× “Although MCLA § 211.53a (Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 7.97) permits recovery of excess taxes notwithstanding the failure to register a protest, it does so only if the portion exceeding the lawful amount is paid either as the result of a mutual mistake of fact or a clerical error.”
Bodeco LLC v. City of Traverse City (2025) michctapp · cites it 21× “TAX YEARS 2019 AND 2020 Petitioner faults the Tax Tribunal for improperly dismissing the appeal regarding tax years 2019 and 2020.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.