 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fred's Tire Co., Inc. v. 2002 Chevrolet Silverado11/30/2004
-related offenses, that Fred Macalus, Sr .--the sole owner of Fred's Tire--was aware of his son's prior drunk driving and knew or should have known he was using the 2002 Silverado for his personal use, that the license plates of a company truck had been impounded in 1999 because Macalus was driving the truck while he was under the influence of alcohol, and that Fred's Tire "acquiesc[ed] in Frank Macalus's personal use of the company owned truck." The court also found that the "knowledge of the corporation is not limited to the actual knowledge of its sole owner and president, but the corporation also has the constructive knowledge of its authorized agent," that Macalus, as a co-manager, was authorized to use the 2002 Silverado, and that Macalus himself knew of his intended use of the vehicle. Based on these findings the district court ordered the 2002 Silverado forfeited to the Washington County Sheriff's Department under Minn.Stat. § 169A.63.
DECISION
Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn.1998). When reviewing a district court's findings of fact, this court may not set such findings aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Rife v. One 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier, 485 N.W.2d 318, 321 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. June 30, 1992). If the underlying findings of fact made by the district court are undisputed or sustainable, the district court's "ultimate" findings must be affirmed because of the absence of a demonstrated abuse of discretion. Maxfield v. Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Minn.1990).
1. Under Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 6, "A motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture ... if it was used in the commission of a designated offense or was used in conduct resulting in a designated license revocation." The parties stipulated that Macalus used the 2002 Silverado in the commission of a designated offense. Because Fred's Tire was the owner of the 2002 Silverado, the vehicle is only subject to forfeiture "if its owner knew or should have known of the unlawful use or intended use." Id., subd. 7(d). Fred's Tire argues that "unlawful use" in subdivision 7(d) must refer to the "designated offense" in subdivision 6 and thus, the record must show that it knew of or should have known of Macalus's prior DWI convictions.
*3 Courts interpret statutes to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (1998); see also Klein Bancorporation, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 581 N.W.2d 863, 866 (Minn.App.1998) (noting that "[w]e presume plain and unambiguous statutory language manifests legislative intent"), review denied (Minn. Sept. 22, 1998). When a statute is free of ambiguity, we look only at its plain language. Tuma v. Comm'r of Econ. Sec., 386 N.W.2d 702, 706 (Minn.1986).
The plain meaning of the phrase "unlawful use" is use prohibited by law. Black's Law Dictionary 1536, 1540 (7th ed.1999) (defining unlawful as "not authorized by law; illegal" and "use" as "the application or employment of something"). The plain meaning of the phrase "intended use" is use that is deliberate or intentional. American Heritage College Dictionary 721 (4th ed.2002) (defining intended as "deliberate or intentional"). We conclude the language of subdivision 7(d) is unambiguous and it is sufficient that Fred's Tire knew or should have known that Macalus would intentionally drive the company vehicle for personal use or that he would use the vehicle while he was impaired in violation of Minn.Stat. § 169A.20.
2. Fred's Tire also argues the record does not support a finding that he knew or should have know of the unlawful use, suggesting that the district court findings ignore "the strong evidence showing that it was not reasona
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|