Donald Ray Reid v. Thetford Township, 331631

Background

Plaintiff owned property in Clio with numerous vehicles; Thetford Township issued blight notices and a July 3, 2014 citation for improper storage of junk/inoperative/unregistered vehicles.
On July 21, 2014 the Thetford Township Police seized vehicles and Louie’s Towing removed them to storage; plaintiff later was told he must pay fees for all vehicles to retrieve any.
District court entered a September 9, 2014 consent order allowing plaintiff to obtain removed vehicles if he paid “all fees associated therewith” and not return them to the property; unsought vehicles could be auctioned after Oct. 1.
Plaintiff sued Township, Police Department, and Louie’s alleging wrongful seizure, conversion, and consumer protection violations; defendants moved for summary disposition asserting collateral estoppel/res judicata and later governmental immunity.
Plaintiff pled guilty in December 2014 to four charges including the ordinance violation for improper storage of junk/inoperative/unregistered vehicles; the plea did not specify how many vehicles were implicated.
The trial court denied defendants’ first summary disposition motion (C)(7)/(C)(10) due to factual disputes; later denied a tardy governmental-immunity motion as outside scheduling order — the Court of Appeals reversed that denial and remanded for consideration of immunity, but affirmed denial of the preclusion/res judicata defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff is precluded by his municipal ordinance guilty plea from litigating wrongful seizure of some vehicles	Reid argues plea did not establish how many or which vehicles were "junk," so he can still claim some seized vehicles were operable/insured and wrongfully taken	Defendants argue the guilty plea and prior disposition bar relitigation under res judicata or collateral estoppel	Court: Not precluded — plea and citation did not establish number/type of vehicles; factual disputes remain, so preclusion doctrine does not bar claim
Whether the consent order bars challenges to towing/storage fees charged for vehicle release	Reid contends the consent order’s generic “pay all fees associated therewith” does not resolve reasonableness or identify which fees (Township’s vs. tow company’s)	Defendants contend the consent order requires plaintiff to pay all fees and precludes challenge	Court: Consent order does not conclusively determine reasonableness or which fees; record insufficient to bar challenge as to defendants
Whether Township Ordinance No. 112 authorized seizure/impoundment of vehicles on plaintiff’s private property	Reid argues Ordinance No. 112 authorizes removal only from public places, not private-property storage of vehicles	Defendants rely on Ordinance No. 112 to justify removal and $150 release fee	Court: Ordinance authorizes removal from public places; record lacks allegation vehicles were on public ways, so Ordinance 112 does not support removal here
Whether the trial court properly denied defendants’ late summary disposition motion based on governmental immunity	Reid asserts the court properly rejected late filing under its scheduling order	Defendants assert MCR 2.116(D)(3) permits raising governmental immunity at any time and the court abused discretion by refusing to consider it	Court: MCR 2.116(D)(3) is unambiguous — governmental immunity may be raised at any time; trial court abused discretion by denying the late motion and case remanded for consideration of immunity

Key Cases Cited

Spiek v. Department of Transportation, 456 Mich 331 (summary-disposition standard and review)
Nash v. Duncan Park Commission, 304 Mich App 599 (distinguishing C(7) defenses and scope)
Abbott v. John E. Green Co., 233 Mich App 194 (treatment of plaintiff’s allegations on C(7) review)
Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich App 58 (C(10) standard—no genuine issue of material fact)
Adair v. State, 470 Mich 105 (res judicata elements and application)
Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co., 469 Mich 679 (policy and elements of collateral estoppel)
Holton v. Ward, 303 Mich App 718 (collateral estoppel elements and mutuality)
CAM Construction v. Lake Edgewood Condominium Ass'n, 465 Mich 549 (interpretation of court rules/plain language)
Kemerko Clawson LLC v. RXIV Inc., 269 Mich App 347 (trial court discretion on scheduling-order enforcement)