Noll v. Ritzer
317 Mich. App. 506
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Noll owned a motorcycle later towed from a crime scene and stored for about a year, amassing over $11,000 in towing and storage fees.
- Notice of Abandoned Vehicle was sent; Noll requested a hearing challenging fee reasonableness under MCL 257.252a(6)/(13).
- District court held a hearing without requiring a bond equal to the accrued towing and storage fees, despite the statute.
- District court found towing/storage fees reasonable and limited damages to $1,000 under MCL 257.252i(2).
- Circuit court affirmed the district court’s bond ruling but noted other errors; this appeal challenges the bond prerequisite.
- Michigan Court of Appeals reverses and remands, holding that bond must accompany a hearing request under 2008 PA 539 and the statute must be read as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bond requirement before a hearing under 257.252a | Noll contends no bond is required to obtain a hearing. | Ritzer argues a bond of $40 plus accrued fees is mandatory prior to a hearing. | Bond must accompany the hearing request; district/circuit erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co v City of Woodhaven, 475 Mich 425 (2006) (statutory interpretation favors legislative intent)
- Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303 (2013) (plain language aids interpretation when unambiguous)
- Ross v Modern Mirror & Glass Co, 268 Mich App 558 (2005) (apparent plain language can be ambiguous by interaction with other statutes)
- Nowell v Titan Ins Co, 466 Mich 478 (2002) (read statutes as a whole and harmonize provisions)
- Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120 (2007) (statutory amendments reflected intent and clarified interpretation)
- Bush v Shabahang, 484 Mich 156 (2009) (legislative changes can clarify statutory meaning)
- Smitter v Thornapple Twp, 494 Mich 121 (2013) (presence of mandatory language generally implies a requirement)