TODD DAWSON V SECRETARY OF STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TODD DAWSON, RONALD J. HALE, WILBUR
LOEW, MICHAEL MEDORE, and MICHELLE
ZAINEA,
FOR PUBLICATION
March 20, 2007
9:15 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
SECRETARY OF STATE and DEPARTMENT
OF TREASURY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 264103
Court of Claims
LC No. 05-000043-MM
Official Reported Version
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Zahra and Davis, JJ.
ZAHRA, J. (concurring in part).
I agree with the conclusion reached by my colleagues that the Michigan driver
responsibility law (DRL), MCL 257.732a, does not violate the United States and Michigan
constitutions. I also agree with the conclusion reached in Judge Wilder's opinion that the DRL
fee is a civil sanction and not a criminal penalty. I write separately because I disagree with
Judge Wilder's conclusion that the DRL fee is a tax.
In my view, the DRL "fees" are not taxes because they lack the essential characteristic of
an enforced contribution. "Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is not a voluntary payment
or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority." Black's
Law Dictionary (6th ed), p 1457, citing Employment Security Comm v Patt, 4 Mich App 228,
233; 144 NW2d 623 (1966). Beyond merely requesting that DRL "fees" be paid, the only
method of enforcement provided to the Secretary of State is contained in MCL 257.732a(5),
which states that "[i]f payment is not received or an installment plan is not established after the
time limit required by the second notice prescribed under subsection (3) expires, the secretary of
state shall suspend the driving privileges until the assessment and any other fees prescribed under
this act are paid."
The language of the DRL plainly commands the Secretary of State to suspend the driver's
license of an offending driver until the DRL "fee" is paid. However, as long as offending drivers
-1-
do not seek to restore their driving privileges, they need not pay the DRL "fee."1 The DRL does
not address the collection of the "fees" beyond withholding an offending driver's license to drive.
Accordingly, the DRL "fee" is not a tax.
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
1
In addition, a credible argument can be made that DRL "fees" are not compulsory because
commission of the offenses enumerated under the DRL is not compulsory.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
