The Michigan Vehicle Code (MVC); Vehicle owner petition for a hearing on the reasonableness of incurred towing & storage fees; MCL 257.252a; Timeliness; Noll v Ritzer; “Shall”; Effect of an irregularity in a police department’s compliance with the procedures in MCL 257.252d for validly impounding a vehicle; Notice of abandonment issued by the Secretary of State

The court held that MCL 257.252a requires “that a vehicle owner’s petition challenging the reasonableness of towing or storage fees must be filed within 20 days of the date of a notice of abandonment.” The petition here, filed after that deadline, was untimely and thus, petitioner was “not entitled to a district court hearing and” issuance of an order. Rather, the district court had to dismiss the petition and erred in not doing so. The vehicle was towed from the scene of an accident by respondent at a police department’s request. Petitioner later became the titled owner of the vehicle and “filed a petition in the district court requesting a hearing to determine ‘the reasonableness of the towing/storage fees.’” The district court ruled in respondent’s favor. On appeal, the circuit court ruled in petitioner’s favor. Respondent then appealed to the court, which agreed with respondent that “MCL 257.252a requires a vehicle owner to request a hearing by filing a petition within 20 days after receiving notice of the abandonment of the owner’s vehicle, and because petitioner filed its petition more than 20 days after receiving this notice, the district court erred by holding a hearing and issuing an order on the petition.” MCL 257.252a(6) states in part that: “A request for a hearing shall be made by filing a petition with the court specified in the notice described in subsection (5)(c) within 20 days after the date of the notice.” The court held that this provision “mandates that a request for a hearing be made within 20 days after the date of the notice of abandonment. The mandatory nature of the 20-day filing requirement is reiterated elsewhere in MCL 257.252a, illustrating the Legislature’s emphasis on the necessity of compliance with this deadline.” Petitioner did not file its petition until “36 days after the Secretary of State provided” the notice. The court found that nothing in the MVC “indicates that an irregularity in complying with the procedures outlined in MCL 257.252d excuses a vehicle’s owner from complying with the” deadline. And even if the notice was missing certain elements, the court saw “no reason why this would delay the petition-filing deadline” as petitioner proposed. It vacated the circuit court’s order reversing the district court’s order and remanded with instructions for the circuit court to “vacate the district court’s order and remand for the petition to be dismissed with prejudice.”