Two men who admitted going “mudding” with their pickup trucks over an Iron River field in April 2021 have successfully challenged a court ruling that they owe the city almost $140,000 for damage done to an underlying drain and septic system.

The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with Christopher Maki and David Dobson that they could not be held totally responsible for the damage, given the evidence others had driven extensively over the same area before them.

On April 10, 2021, Iron River’s mayor heard motor vehicles on the field and reported it to the city manager, who called law enforcement. All noticed ruts from tire tracks, plus mud, standing water and the smell of sewage, according to the appeals court opinion released Monday.

Maki and Dobson admitted taking their pickup trucks through the mud and standing water in the field earlier that day. They pleaded no contest in Iron County District Court in August 2021 to a misdemeanor of malicious destruction of grass, turf or soil in the amount of less than $200, drawing a sentence of five days of community service and $335 in fines and costs.

At a restitution hearing in July 2022, the city manager maintained the damage to the drain and septic system could not be repaired, so the city was seeking $139,378 to cover all replacement costs.

But Maki and Dobson argued others had caused the deep ruts and damage in the ground well before them, with a friend providing videos that showed previous vehicles in the field, “spinning their tires in the mud,” according to the opinion.

The district court Sept. 28, 2022, still held the two men responsible for the total $139,378 awarded in restitution to the city, even while acknowledging that other “mudders” had “(c)learly … caused extensive damage to the drain field” a day earlier.

The district court later denied their joint motion for reconsideration and circuit court turned away their appeal.

In the opinion, the state appeals court agreed with the pair’s argument “they can only be ordered to pay restitution for losses that are factually and proximately caused by the sentencing offense, and the prosecution presented insufficient evidence demonstrating that they caused the claimed damage to the drain and septic system.”

The district court erred in its decision by relying on testimony from the city manager and investigating officer, neither of whom had visited the field before the two men had driven on it and so were unable to say what damage they specifically had caused, the appeals court ruled.

“It is thus clear from the entirety of their testimony that the officer and city manager simply assumed that because they had observed the damage to the field on April 10, 2021, and because defendants admitted to driving on the field earlier that day, defendants must have caused the damage,” the opinion states.

The state appeals court reversed the circuit court’s affirming of the district court’s ruling and vacated the district court’s restitution order, sending it back for a new hearing “to determine the proper amount of restitution, if any, owed by defendants.”