Huron Tp. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 140087,142089 |
| Citation | 505 N.W.2d 897,201 Mich.App. 210 |
| Parties | HURON TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. HURON TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INLAND WATERS POLLUTION CONTROL, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Allen, James, Tanner & Foley, P.C. by Kevin J. Foley, Southgate, for plaintiff.
Thomas H. O'Connor, Troy, for defendants.
Before: MARILYN J. KELLY, P.J., and SHEPHERD and CONNOR, JJ.
The issue in these consolidated cases involves the assessment of fines for the operation of overweight vehicles in violation of plaintiff Huron Township's Ordinance 88-6, which incorporates by reference provisions of the Vehicle Code, M.C.L. § 257.722; M.S.A. § 9.2422 and M.C.L. § 257.724; M.S.A. § 9.2424.
In Docket No. 140087, plaintiff issued four tickets against defendant City Disposal Systems, Inc., for operating overweight vehicles in violation of the ordinance. Defendant pleaded responsibility for all four violations. In an order dated January 29, 1991, the district court assessed defendant $14,004.50 in fines. On April 12, 1991, Wayne Circuit Judge John H. Hausner issued an order affirming the decision of the district court. Defendant now appeals by leave granted.
In Docket No. 142089, plaintiff issued one ticket against defendant Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc., for violating the ordinance. Defendant pleaded responsibility for the violation. On January 29, 1991, the district court assessed defendant $6,915 in fines. In an order dated June 5, 1991, Wayne Circuit Judge John R. Kirwan granted defendant's motion to set aside the district court order and reduced the fine to no more than $500 pursuant to M.C.L. § 42.21; M.S.A § 5.46(21). Plaintiff appeals that order by leave granted.
The issue in these consolidated appeals involves a question of statutory interpretation. Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, judicial construction or interpretation is precluded. Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co, 439 Mich. 370, 376, 483 N.W.2d 844 (1992). If judicial construction or interpretation is necessary, the primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Id.; People v. Hawkins, 181 Mich.App. 393, 396, 448 N.W.2d 858 (1989). If two statutes address the same subject, courts must strive to read them harmoniously in order to give both statutes a reasonable effect. House Speaker v. State Administrative Bd., 441 Mich. 547, 568, 495 N.W.2d 539 (1993). Where two statutes conflict, and one is specific to the subject matter while the other is generally applicable, the specific statute prevails as an exception to the general one. People v. Tucker, 177 Mich.App. 174, 179, 441 N.W.2d 59 (1989). The rules of statutory construction also apply to ordinances. Albright v. Portage, 188 Mich.App. 342, 350, n. 7, 470 N.W.2d 657 (1991).
Plaintiff Huron Township's Ordinance 88-6, effective September 28, 1988, provides in pertinent part:
An ordinance to protect the Public Health, Safety and General Welfare ... by Regulating the Wheel and Axle Loads and Gross Vehicle Weights of certain vehicles operating within the Township of Huron, Wayne County, Michigan: to adopt by reference certain sections of the Michigan Vehicle Code being MCL 257.1 et seq. to provide for the enforcement of said Ordinance and Penalties for the violation of same.
In addition, § 2 of the ordinance adopts by reference M.C.L. 257.722; M.S.A. § 9.2422, which provides for graduated penalties for violation of wheel and axle restrictions, and M.C.L. § 257.724; M.S.A. § 9.2424, which provides the same for excessive loads.
Plaintiff claims that the calculation of fines in accordance with §§ 722 and 724 of the Vehicle Code is permissible because § 23 of the charter township act, M.C.L. § 42.23; M.S.A. § 5.46(23), expressly allows a township to adopt "any provision of state law or any detailed technical regulations as a township ordinance or code by citation of such provision of state law." Because Ordinance 88-6 was adopted in conformity with M.C.L. § 42.23; M.S.A. § 5.46(23), plaintiff argues that it must be presumed proper and lawful. Watnick v. Detroit, 365 Mich. 600, 113 N.W.2d 876 (1962).
Defendants City Disposal and Inland Waters both argue that pursuant to § 21 of the Charter Township Act, M.C.L. § 42.21; M.S.A. § 5.46(21), the maximum fine that plaintiff Huron Township can impose for a violation of a township ordinance is limited to $500. Section 21 provides:
The township board shall provide in each ordinance for the punishment of those who violate the township's provisions. Punishment for the violation of a township ordinance shall not exceed a fine of $500.00, or imprisonment for 90 days, or both, in the discretion of the court. Fines collected for the violation of the ordinances of a charter township shall be distributed as provided in section 8379 of Act No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, being section 600.8379 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
Notwithstanding that Huron Township adopted its ordinance by incorporating provisions of the Vehicle Code, defendants maintain that plaintiff may not impose penalties that exceed $500. We disagree.
As is apparent from the language of the statute, M.C.L. § 42.21; M.S.A. § 5.46(21) is a criminal statute providing for criminal penalties. M.C.L. § 750.5; M.S.A. § 28.195 defines "crime" in part as follows:
"Crime" means an act or omission forbidden by law which is not designated as a civil infraction, and which is punishable upon conviction by any 1 or more of the following:
(a) Imprisonment
(b) Fine not designated a civil fine.
M.C.L. § 42.21; M.S.A. § 5.46(21) provides for punishment not to exceed $500 or imprisonment for ninety days, and thus is a criminal statute.
Here the violations of Ordinance 88-6 regarding overweight vehicles are civil, not criminal, infractions, because they are not punishable by imprisonment or penal fines. M.C.L. § 600.113; M.S.A. § 27A.113; Library Bd. v. District Judges, 118 Mich.App. 379, 325 N.W.2d 777 (1982). Thus, even though M.C.L. § 42.21; M.S.A. § 5.46(21) specifies the general rule that no township ordinance may provide for a criminal penalty in excess of $500, a township may nonetheless impose fines for civil infractions in excess of that amount by adopting the appropriate state law. By adopting §§ 722 and 724 of the Vehicle Code regarding the method for calculating fines for overweight vehicles pursuant to M.C.L. § 42.23; M.S.A. § 5.46(23), plaintiff Huron Township is therefore allowed to impose penalties that exceed the $500 limitation.
In this regard, we note that defendants' reliance upon Renne v. Waterford Twp, 73 Mich.App. 685, 252...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
...effect. House Speaker v. State Administrative Bd., 441 Mich. 547, 568, 495 N.W.2d 539 (1993); Huron Twp. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc., 201 Mich. App. 210, 212, 505 N.W.2d 897 (1993).") ("[W]e are required to treat the mandates of § 341 as paramount to sentences in other statutes that appe......
-
City of Livonia v. Goretski Const. Co.
...challenges to the $500 limitation, as applied to vehicle overweight violations, surfaced in 1991. See Huron Twp. v. City Disposal Systems, Inc., 201 Mich.App. 210, 505 N.W.2d 897 (1993). Municipal officials, concerned with the potential loss of revenue if overweight fines were restricted to......
-
People v. City Disposal Systems, Inc., s. 140087
...Pollution Control, Inc. NOS. 97583, 97584. COA Nos. 140087, 142089. Supreme Court of Michigan July 22, 1994 Prior Report: 201 Mich.App. 210, 505 N.W.2d 897. Disposition: Leave to appeal GRANTED. Motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is also considered, and it is ...