 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation v. State of Tennessee Department of Safety11/7/2003
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 14, 2002, Ricky D. Stallings was driving a 1999 Toyota Tacoma pickup truck he had leased from the appellee, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ("TMCC"), when he was stopped by a Knoxville police officer and arrested for driving under the influence , third offense, and driving on a revoked license. The vehicle was seized pursuant to the statutes that provide for the forfeiture of a vehicle used in the commission of a person's second or subsequent DUI or in the commission of the offense of driving on a revoked license when a person's license has been revoked for DUI. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-33-201 et seq., 55-10-401, -403, -50-504. On February 21, 2002, the Department of Safety sent certified letters containing information about the forfeiture warrant and the procedure for filing a claim for the vehicle to Stallings at his home address and to TMCC at the address listed on the vehicle's certificate of title and registration. The record establishes that Stallings signed for his certified letter, but that the certified letter sent to TMCC was returned unopened and marked "Not Deliverable as Addressed Unable to Forward."
Having failed to receive a petition from any party asserting a claim to the vehicle, the Department issued a summary order of forfeiture on May 10, 2002. Thereafter, TMCC filed a "Petition for Stay and Petition for Reconsideration" in the Appeals Division of the Department, asserting, inter alia, that it had relocated its office from Brentwood to Franklin two years previously; that it had filed a request with the United States Postal Service to have its mail forwarded to its new address for the maximum amount of time allowed by law, which was approximately one year; that it was licensed to do business in the State of Tennessee and maintained a registered agent for service of process whose name and address were on file with the Secretary of State's Office; and that it had received no notice of the forfeiture of the vehicle. The Appeals Division denied TMCC's petition, ruling that the Department's notice complied with the forfeiture rules and was sufficient to satisfy due process requirements.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4-5-101 et seq., TMCC filed a petition for review of the Department's ruling in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. In a detailed and lengthy memorandum and order, the trial court concluded that because the Department knew TMCC was the owner of the vehicle and could have easily obtained its correct address from the Secretary of State's Office, the notice it provided violated Article 1, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. Accordingly, the trial court remanded the case to the Commissioner of Safety with instructions that the Department grant TMCC a hearing on its claim that it should be given possession of the vehicle. The trial court's order states in pertinent part:
The Court must consider the [Brown v. Tennessee Dep't of Safety, No. 01-A-01-9102-CH00043, 1992 WL 63444 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 1992)] factors stated above. The Department had knowledge of who owned the property. It would have been fairly simple for the Department to determine the correct address of TMCC and it could have done this with very little practical difficulty. Certainly the concept of notice must be mixed with a little common sense. When the letter came back that said TMCC was not at this address it would have been relatively easy for an employee of the Department to find the correct address. Furthermore, TMCC is the kind of entity which anyone with the least bit of sense would know could be located with little effort. Obvio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|