 |
 |
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
ble for Fred Macalus, Sr. to expect that the [2002 Silverado] would be used in the commission of a designated offense." Although Fred's Tire argues it had no knowledge of Macalus's "unlawful use," Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) provides a vehicle is subject to forfeiture "if its owner knew or should have known of the unlawful use or intended use." Our determination is limited to deciding whether the district court's ultimate finding that Fred's Tire knew or should have known of Macalus's unlawful use or intended use was an abuse of discretion because the court's findings were clearly erroneous. See Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d at 221; Rife, 485 N.W.2d 318, 321.
The district court found that Macalus had a significant history of drunk driving and alcohol-related offenses, that Fred Macalus, Sr ., the sole owner of Fred's Tire, was aware of his son's alcohol-related driving offenses, 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 Macalus's personal use of the company owned truck."
These findings are supported by the record. Macalus testified that he was driving a company vehicle during his prior DWI offenses, that the license plates had been impounded, and that new license plates were obtained "through the office." Macalus's neighbors provided statements that he used the 2002 Silverado daily. Washington County also produced multiple personal items that were found in the 2002 Silverado. Further, neither Macalus nor Fred Macalus, Sr. adequately accounted for the 24,400 miles that had been put on the truck in the year since its purchase. The district court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its ultimate finding that Fred's Tire knew or should have known of Macalus's unlawful use or intended use. See Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d at 221.
*4 Although a finding that Fred Macalus, Sr., as the sole owner of Fred's Tire, knew or should have known of Macalus's unlawful use or intended use is sufficient to defeat the "innocent owner" defense under Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d), we also conclude that the district court correctly determined that Macaulus's knowledge, as an authorized agent of the corporation, could be imputed to Fred's Tire. In making this determination, the district court found that Macalus--as a co-manager--was authorized to use the 2002 Silverado, and that Macalus knew of his intended and unlawful use of the vehicle.
Fred's Tire argues that it was impermissible to impute any knowledge Macalus had of his own actions to the corporation because he is not an officer of the corporation. Macalus testified that under the company policy, store managers are authorized to use the company vehicle. Use of the company vehicle was within the scope of Macalus's authority and therefore his knowledge regarding his use of that vehicle is imputable to the corporation. Kay v. Peter Motor Co., Inc., 483 N.W.2d 481, 485 (Minn.App.1992) (stating knowledge of corporate officer "as both employee and officer was properly imputed to the corporation by the trial court" (emphasis added)).
Further, because Fred's Tire acquiesced in the personal use of the company vehicle or would have learned of Macalus's use of the vehicle if it had exercised proper care, the corporation is chargeable for his acts. See McGee v. Breezy Point Estates, 283 Minn. 10, 22, 166 N.W.2d 81, 89 (Minn.1969) (stating "scope of apparent authority is determined not only by what the principal knows and acquiesces in, but also by what the principal should, in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, know his agent is doing").
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|