Court Opinion

ID: 9592410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:13:59.943747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:21.033532
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
In the spring of 1990, Huron Township fined Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc., for violating the township’s overweight vehicle *364ordinance.1 Inland pleaded "responsible” to the charge, and the district court fined Inland $6,915. Inland appealed. The Wayne Circuit Court reduced the fine to $500 on June 5, 1991. The township appealed in the Court of Appeals.
During that same spring another trucking company, City Disposal Systems, Inc. (cds), received four citations for the same offense. On January 29, 1991, the district court assessed cds $14,004.50 in fines. Cds appealed, and the Wayne Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s order on April 12, 1991. The Court of Appeals granted cds leave to appeal, and the cases were consolidated.
The Court of Appeals affirmed with respect to cds and reinstated the district court’s judgment against Inland. Cds and Inland have appealed to this Court. 201 Mich App 210; 505 NW2d 897 (1993). We reverse and remand.
The sole issue before us is one of statutory interpretation. MCL 42.20; MSA 5.46(20) provides that legislation of charter townships shall be by ordinance.2 MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21) restricts the punishment for violation of a township ordinance to a fine of $500 or imprisonment for ninety days, or both.3 MCL 42.23; MSA 5.46(23) allows a town*365ship to adopt any provision of state law as an ordinance.4
Huron Township adopted as its Ordinance 88-6, MCL 257.722; MSA 9.2422 and MCL 257.724; MSA 9.2424, which impose wheel and axle load limits (overweight vehicle regulations) and provide for fines well in excess of $500. The disparity in fines in the instant cases resulted because on appeal the circuit court in Inland applied the $500 restriction on ordinance fines, MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21), while the circuit court in CDS imposed the heavier fines set out in the township ordinance. The Court of Appeals ruled that MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21) "is a criminal statute providing for criminal penalties.” The Court then held that MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21) was inapplicable in the present case because Ordinance 88-6 created civil infractions.
We find nothing in the statutes to support such a division into civil and criminal ordinances. This Court has long recognized that prosecutions for violations of ordinances are in a sense criminal, but that such violations are not criminal cases within the meaning of the statutes and rules for review by this Court. People v Riksen, 284 Mich 284; 279 NW 513 (1938); Delta Co v City of Gladstone, 305 Mich 50; 8 NW2d 908 (1943).
The amendment of MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21), by 1994 PA 13, allows townships to create "civil infraction[s]” and to provide for "civil fine[s].” These civil fines were specifically exempted from the $500 limitation on fines by this amendment, *366which became effective May 1, 1994. In accordance with the general rule of statutory construction that an amendment is to be construed as changing the statute amended, Bonifas-Gorman Lumber Co v Unemployment Compensation Comm, 313 Mich 363, 369; 21 NW2d 163 (1946), this amendment supports our view that the prior statute had no such distinction in its scheme. Because the infractions at issue took place before the amendment’s enactment and the amendment was not given retroactive effect, the new provisions do not apply to the instant cases. Hurd v Ford Motor Co, 423 Mich 531; 377 NW2d 300 (1985).
We disagree with plaintiff’s contention that its ordinance is not restricted by the limitation in fines of MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21). The amount or limitation of a penalty imposed by or under an ordinance must comply with a specific governing provision of law. Where the penalty is fixed by statute, the penalty imposed by the ordinance cannot exceed the limit prescribed. 5 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3d ed), § 17.14, p 407. We rely on the obvious principle that the townships are required to follow the laws pertaining to them, and therefore cannot impose a penalty greater than that authorized by MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21). See Renne v Waterford Twp, 73 Mich App 685; 252 NW2d 842 (1977).
Any conflict between MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21) and MCL 42.23; MSA 5.46(23) would be resolved in favor of MCL 42.21; MSA 5.46(21), which is more specific with respect to fines than the general statute allowing townships to adopt state statutes as ordinances. Crane v Reeder, 22 Mich 322 (1871).
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the district court to have fines assessed in conformance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
*367Brickley, C.J., and Levin, Boyle, and Mallett, JJ., concurred with Weaver, J.

 Ordinance 88-6.

 All legislation of charter townships shall be by ordinance or by resolution. The term "resolution” shall mean the, official action of the township board in the form of a motion, and such action shall be limited to matters required or permitted to be done by resolution by this act or by state or federal law and to matters pertaining to the internal affairs or concerns of the township government. All other acts of the township board, and all acts carrying a penalty for the violation thereof, shall be by ordinance. Each ordinance shall be identified by a number and a short title.

 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.

 The township board may 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 or by reference to any recognized standard code, official or unofficial: Provided, That any such provision of state law or recognized official or unofficial standard code shall be clearly identified in the ordinance adopting the same as an ordinance of the township.