History
  • No items yet
midpage
374903
Mich. Ct. App.
Jul 7, 2026
Read the full case

Background

  • CURE sued towing and repair-facility defendants in circuit court to recover allegedly excessive towing, storage, and release fees paid for an insured's accident-damaged vehicle. 1
  • The insured's vehicle had been towed under MCL 257.252d, the MVC's special anti-theft provision authorizing police-directed removal from the crash scene. 2
  • Grand Sport allegedly refused to release the vehicle unless CURE reimbursed towing fees and paid additional charges, and CURE paid before suing for conversion, MCPA violations, extortion, interference, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. 3
  • The circuit court dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(4), ruling that MCL 257.252e(1) gave exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute to district court. 4
  • The issue on appeal was whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over CURE's claims. 5
  • The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MCL 257.252e(1) divests circuit courts of jurisdiction only for claims actually within the statute's scope, and CURE's claims were not. 6

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Does MCL 257.252e(1) divest circuit courts of jurisdiction? 7 CURE said circuit court still had general jurisdiction. Area Towing argued district court had exclusive jurisdiction. Yes; the statute removes circuit jurisdiction for covered claims. 8
Do CURE's fee-based claims fall within MCL 257.252e(1)? 9 CURE said its claims challenge unlawful fees, not vehicle processing. Area Towing said the claims challenge processing under MCL 257.252d. No; the claims fall outside the statute's processing procedure, so circuit jurisdiction remains. 10

Key Cases Cited

  • Maple Manor Rehab Ctr., LLC v. Dep't of Treasury, 333 Mich. App. 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020) (summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) when subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking 11)
  • Doe v. Gen. Motors, 511 Mich. 1038 (Mich. 2023) (court considers pleadings and documentary evidence on a jurisdictional summary-disposition motion 12)
  • Mich. Farm Bureau v. Dep't of Environment, Great Lakes, & Energy, 515 Mich. 481 (Mich. 2024) (subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's authority over a class of cases 13)
  • Teddy 23, LLC v. Mich. Film Office, 313 Mich. App. 557 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (constitutional and statutory limits define subject-matter jurisdiction 14)
  • Meisner Law Group PC v. Weston Downs Condo Ass'n, 321 Mich. App. 702 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (courts must dismiss actions outside their subject-matter jurisdiction 15)
  • McKenzie v. Dep't of Corrections, 332 Mich. App. 289 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020) (circuit jurisdiction exists unless prohibited or exclusively assigned elsewhere 16)
  • Hodge v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 499 Mich. 211 (Mich. 2016) (district-court civil jurisdiction generally ends at $25,000 unless a specific statute provides otherwise 17)
  • Clohset v. No Name Corp., 302 Mich. App. 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (specific jurisdictional grants override general grants regardless of amount in controversy 18)
  • Reynolds v. Robert Hasbany MD PLLC, 323 Mich. App. 426 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018) (specific statute controls over general jurisdictional statute 19)
  • Batista v. Office of Retirement Servs., 515 Mich. 283 (Mich. 2024) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language and the statute as a whole 20)
  • McQueer v. Perfect Fence Co., 502 Mich. 276 (Mich. 2018) (courts apply unambiguous statutory language as written without adding terms 21)
  • New Covert Generating Co., LLC v. Covert Twp., 334 Mich. App. 24 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020) (statutory text must be read in context, not in a vacuum 22)
  • In re Estate of Durbin, 205 Mich. App. 113 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994) (statutes should be read harmoniously as a whole 23)
  • Ahmed v. Tokio Marine America Ins. Co., 337 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021) (courts avoid constructions that render statutory language surplusage or nugatory 24)
  • Mr Sunshine v. Delta College Bd. of Trustees, 343 Mich. App. 597 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022) (expressio unius applies when listed items imply exclusion of unlisted ones 25)
  • Grand Rapids v. Brookstone Capital, LLC, 334 Mich. App. 452 (Mich. Ct. App. 2020) (undefined statutory terms may be given their plain meaning from dictionaries 26)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange V Cnmc Inc
Court Name: Michigan Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 7, 2026
Citation: 374903
Docket Number: 374903
Court Abbreviation: Mich. Ct. App.
Log In