Issues: Action challenging a $250 emergency cost recovery fee that the defendant-City charged related to the plaintiff's arrest for OUIL; Intentional misrepresentation and fraud claim; Lawrence M. Clarke, Inc. v. Richco Constr., Inc.; Whether MCL 769.1f limits recoverable expenses to those related to an emergency response; Effect of a Supreme Court Administrative Office memorandum dated 5/6/10; The appropriate method for challenging court-imposed costs in a criminal case; People v. Howard
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Duff v. City of Lincoln Park
e-Journal Number: 50610
Judge(s): Per Curiam – Murray, Talbot, and Servitto
Holding, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not entitled to collaterally attack the validity of his criminal conviction (and any attendant penalties imposed as a result of it) in a separate civil lawsuit, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting the defendant-City summary disposition on his fraud and misrepresentation claim. Plaintiff filed this suit challenging a $250 emergency cost recovery fee that the City charged related to his arrest for OUIL. He asserted that "the City intentionally misrepresented that he owed $250 as reimbursement for emergency response services and costs arising from the incident that led to his arrest, and that the City perpetrated this fraud and misrepresentation on thousands of persons similarly situated." The court noted that MCL 769.1f "provides that recoverable costs may be imposed by a court as part of the sentence for a conviction of a specified offense. The statute does not authorize a city to impose or assess costs on its own, regardless of whether the costs are within the scope of the statute." Thus, the court concluded that the City could not rely on MCL 769.1f as authority for its extra-judicial assessment of costs. However, the City submitted evidence that the same costs were imposed by the trial court in plaintiff's criminal case in which he was convicted of OUIL, and that his "payment of the costs pursuant to the City's separate assessment was credited to those court-imposed costs." The appropriate method for challenging the court-imposed costs in plaintiff's criminal case was an appeal in that case. He did not present any evidence disputing the City's evidence that the same costs were imposed in his criminal case, or that he received credit for those court-imposed costs due to his payment of the assessment at issue here. Plaintiff also did not submit any evidence indicating that he appealed the court-imposed costs or that those costs were ever found to be invalid. To prevail on a fraud and misrepresentation claim, plaintiff had to establish that he suffered an injury. Since the evidence showed that the same costs were imposed in his criminal case, the validity of which was not disputed, and that his payment to the police department was credited against those court-imposed costs, the City's alleged misrepresentation did not cause him any injury. Thus, his fraud and misrepresentation claim could not succeed.
© 2012 State Bar of Michigan