MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.252i Towing and storage fees.
Sec. 252i.
(1) A towing service, custodian of a vehicle, or both, shall not be precluded from the recovery of towing fees or, subject to subsection (2), storage fees from the last titled owner of a vehicle deemed abandoned under section 252a or section 252b, or removed under section 252d.
(2) If a vehicle is released for disposition under section 252b or section 252g, the amount of storage fees that may be collected is whichever 1 of the following is the least amount:
(a) The daily storage rate established by contract or agreement with the law enforcement agency or unit of government that authorized the towing and storage of the vehicle.
(b) The daily storage rate charged by the storage facility.
(c) $1,000.00.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a commercial vehicle or to a vehicle that is owned or leased by an entity other than an individual.
History: Add. 2004, Act 493, Eff. Oct. 1, 2005
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2016–2022 · leading case:
Noll v. Ritzer, 895 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Noll v. Ritzer, 895 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “However, the district court held that respondent was limited to $1,000 in damages due to limitations set by MCL 257.252i(2). 2 Respondent appealed the district court’s decision in the circuit court.”
Robertson v. Breakthrough Towing, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“§ 257.252i(a) (emphasis added). Detroit and Hamtramck had no contract or agreement with Breakthrough, and this lawsuit does not concern tows authorized by the police; whatever authority Breakthrough had to impound vehicles derived from private land-owner requests under Mich.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.252i(2) — 1 case
Noll v. Ritzer, 895 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“However, the district court held that respondent was limited to $1,000 in damages due to limitations set by MCL 257.252i(2). 2 Respondent appealed the district court’s decision in the circuit court.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.252i(a) — 1 case
Robertson v. Breakthrough Towing, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2022).
“§ 257.252i(a) (emphasis added). Detroit and Hamtramck had no contract or agreement with Breakthrough, and this lawsuit does not concern tows authorized by the police; whatever authority Breakthrough had to impound vehicles derived from private land-owner requests under Mich.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.