*1 Louden, tions”); also Louden v. see (1946) 338, 339, 22 N.W.2d

(“An of error based on mere assignment by any argu- not supported

assertion and brief is appellant’s

ment or authorities ap-

waived and will not be considered on prejudicial error is obvious on

peal unless Bartylla’s inspection.”). pro

mere Because arguments lacking supportive

se legal authority, and be-

arguments and/or prejudicial

cause no error “is obvious on inspection,” Bartylla

mere we deem pro waived his se claims.

Affirmed.

MAGNUSON, C.J., having been this court at the time

member of submission, part took

argument no

the consideration or decision of this case. LAASE, Respondent,

David Lee TAHOE, Appellant.

2007 CHEVROLET

No. A07-2023. Appeals of Minnesota.

Court

Aug. 26, 2008.

24 Princeton, MN, the innocent-owner de- and forfeiture under Grigsby, V.

Stephen Paul, Karalus, MN, fense.1 for Re- St. Brian P. spondent. ISSUE Edblad, County Isanti Attor- Jeffrey R. 7(d) Does Minn.Stat. Hooper, Assistant A. ney, Walek Shila of authorize forfeiture a vehicle MN, Cambridge, Ap- Attorney, County to by of its owners commit a one

pellant. joint designated offense when owner convincing and proves by clear evidence ROSS, by and decided Considered he did not know the vehicle or she JOHNSON, and Judge; Judge; Presiding contrary in a manner would be used HARTEN, Judge. law? ANALYSIS OPINION Statutory ques construction is a HARTEN, Judge.* law, tion which this reviews de (the ve- 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe Appellant Ctr., Trade novo. Inc. v. Coun Brookfield hicle) County in Isanti because (Minn. was seized ty Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 393 driver, of the vehicle’s two 1998). its one of a statute to the The designated of- was convicted undisputed a case a ques facts of involves hearing, the district court fense. After a law, tion and the district court’s decision county’s argument rejected O’Malley is not on this court. binding did defense (Minn. innocent-owner Bros., Ulland to be returned to its the vehicle ordered county challenges other owner. county argues the vehicle Subsequently, county

that order. subject to forfeiture because its driver granted stay was for and moved designated was convicted of offense while appeal. pending order driving it and vehicle is presumed “[a] subject if ... forfeiture ... driver is FACTS upon convicted of the ” 2006, in which is based.... May County, On Isanti Jean the forfeiture Minn. 7(a)(1) (2006). Laase, Laase, Re respondent David Stat. wife spondent was a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe asserts was demon they were owners. She forfeiture because he suspicion convincing arrested for strated stopped and evidence DWI, operated was seized for forfei- that he not know it would and the vehicle law and guilty second-degree ture. manner motor pled “[a] She to submit chemical test- vehicle is not to forfeiture ... DWI —refusal prior impaired-driving clear con ing. had one can demonstrate She vincing The district court disallowed evidence owner did not conviction. * Ap- [Respon- judge intent to consume alcohol.... of Minnesota Court of Retired peals, serving by appointment pursuant has dent] evidence Const, VI, § 10. art. Minn. shown he had no alcohol alcohol, consumption, [or] intent to consume court ruled from the bench and The district intent to violate Minnesota Statute driv- [a] respondent "did not that [his found that know ” influence.... any alcohol ... that her under the [or] consumed wife] knowledge that proceeding by or constructive fore the forfeiture posting have actual would be used or bond. The owner post Genin did not any manner to law....” bond, and ultimately his was not (the 7(d) (2006) in- Stat. forfeited but returned to him. 622 N.W.2d *3 defense). nocent-owner that, at 116. provided The statute if forfeited, ultimately vehicle was pro- situa- addresses the instant No statute ceeds could used to pay storage its tion in which one owner of a owned expenses, but not address how those subjects the vehicle to forfeiture vehicle expenses paid were to be joint the vehicle was it a manner that led to ultimately conviction of a forfeited. Id. at owner’s 117-18. challenges rejected that, other owner for- The supreme and the the view by showing bond, that he no knowl- by feiture had not posting the owner had ren- edge that vehicle would be driven dered himself liable for the storage fees contrary to law. of manner The absence because it amending involved rather than statutory covering law forfeiture these construing the statute. Id. at 119. Analo- a first im- circumstances creates case of gously, we cannot amend the innocent- pression. owner to exclude application defense its situations in which the offending driver is may

It settled that not add is well courts joint-owner. a to a what the purposely statute inadvertently Ullom omits overlooks. “[bjecause Moreover, 112, of puni Sch. Dist. No. N.W.2d Indep. 515

615, tive and disfavored nature of the (Minn.App.1994); 617 see also Genin 114, laws, Mercury Marquis, strictly v.1996 622 N.W.2d this court is to construe (Minn.2001) (rejecting 119 construction of language and [their] resolve doubt that would the stat- statute “add words to party challenging favor of the [them].” governing statutory ute the rules [because] Schug v. Nine Thousand Nine Hundred that”). construction forbid & Fifty Sixteen Dollars Gents in U.S. restricted 379, Currency, 669 N.W.2d 382 (Minn.App innocent-owner defense to forfeiture set .2003) omitted), (quotation review denied 169A.63, 7(d), § out Minn.Stat. (Minn. resulting 16 Dec. The doubt in which situations the driver of the vehicle statutory from the omission joint owner, a was not but it did not do so.2 169A.63, § reconciling Minn.Stat. subds. 7(a)(1) (2006) (requiring forfeiture of a ve whether, Genin addressed when vehi- desig hicle is whose driver convicted of a seized for ultimately cle was forfeiture but offense) § with nated Minn.Stat. returned the owner or the 7(d) (disallowing forfeiture of a authority vehi seizing responsible stor- being cle whose does not during the know is age fees seizure. 622 N.W.2d law) in manner at The vehicle driven must was seized under § pro- respon 169.1217 therefore be resolved favor of dent, vided that owner of a owner of the vehicle and the seized possession party could recover be- challenging the vehicle only statutory provision concerning 2. The ve- whole of and is not sug- hicles owners is Minn.Stat. apportionment." party Because neither 1(h) (2006), providing § gested provision apportionment, "if a two motor owned relevant here. people, each extends to owner's interest 26 statutes, Ex v.1993 objective is ers. See Lukkason Chevrolet construing our 806 Pickup, Cab N.W.2d the intent of the tended give effect (2006). (Minn.App.1999) (construing predecessor

ture. Minn.Stat. (Minn. statute), May forfei- review denied impose reluctance legislature’s 1999). But law shall not was not “the letter whose owner on disregarded pretext pursu under the in be misuse is evident aware of its 7(d) (owner spirit.” Loge, State v. omitted). (Minn.2000) (quotation desig- driver convicted vehicle whose offense) repeatedly provides law explicitly also in Minn.Stat. The nated (2006) (owner 2(a) used to commit crimes that vehicles *4 did to forfeiture their owners transaction of business as in property used carrier); 609.5312, § not know of the criminal use. See Minn. common Minn.Stat. a (owner (2006) 169A.63, 7(d); § Minn.Stat. 3(b)(2) subd. of vehicle used Stat. subd. 609.5312, 2(a); offense); § Minn.Stat. subd. Minn.Stat. prostitution in (2006) (owner 4(b)(2) 609.5312, 3(b)(2); § Minn.Stat. 609.5312, subd. § subd. 609.5312, officer); 4(b)(2); fleeing police § Minn.Stat. for subd. vehicle used 5(b) 5(b). 609.5318, 609.5318, § subd. agree § subd. We and Minn.Stat. (2006) (owner drive-by in county spirit of vehicle used of Minn.Stat. that 169A.63, 7(a)(1), §§ § 609.531-.5318 is shooting). protecting Minn.Stat. subd. carry liberally construed to out from driven intoxicated public “must be vehicles ” drivers, purposes.... ignore ... cannot the letter of remedial we [their] (2006). 609.531, 169A.63, 7(d), la preclud § § Liberal Stat. Minn.Stat. writing light innocent “applies ing construction forfeiture of the vehicles of ... tends an innocent presented Respondent, the situation owners. owner, spirit purpose of his effectuate the is entitled to return Dictionary Law writing.” Black’s vehicle.

(7th ed.1999). purpose of the cited DECISION those is to provisions of statutes § losing from their vehicles Because Minn.Stat. 169A.63 innocent owners Thus, of a vehicle does authorize forfeiture through 7(d), sharing pur- one to commit a § used of its owners liberally designated be construed to offense when the other pose, should also has proved innocent prevent respondent, through forfeiture.3 evidence that he did know losing from his contrary be used in a manner Finally, county argues law, the district court not err order- him turning vehicle to defeats respondent’s ing respondent’s the return of vehicle. purpose of the forfeiture statute’s overall from driv- protecting public intoxicated Affirmed. 7(d), pro- members with three

3. Minn.Stat. households include that, by requir- vides the offender of a impaired driving "[i]f [convicted more convictions designated driving committed presumption these owners to rebut member household vehicle] they by their knew vehicle would be prior of the owner and has three or family or in a manner household members convictions, impaired the owner is the inno- to law. This limitation on presumed know of vehicle use respon- defense does not cent-owner law.” dent, however, because his had one wife to limit the innocent-owner de- ture intended impaired driving prior conviction. owners whose families or fense JOHNSON, Judge special- (concurring language subdivision subdivision 7(d), ly). and the third sentence of subdivision 1(h), there is no textual basis for a conclu- I concur sion that the intended either except chapter insofar as relies on 609 of permit prohibit or to forfeiture in this Minnesota por- Statutes to reason situation. provisions chapter tions of the forfeiture reasons, For “liberally opin- 169A should be construed.” these concur in the ion of That derives from the court. chapter which the stated that the forfei- ROSS, Judge (dissenting). provisions sections 609.531 to “must liberally construed” to respectfully dissent. The opin- certain carry out remedial purposes. ion accurately recognizes general rule (2006). la presumed “[a] 609.5318, however, Sections 609.531 to if ... forfeiture ... the driver is convicted have no to this case because offense upon which for- they only to relate forfeitures based on feiture is based.” MinmStat. *5 offenses, 7(a)(1) (2006).

certain enumerated But based on the impaired in violation section proposition that forfeiture laws tainted among is not 169A.20 them. Minn.Stat. punitive nature, with a and disfavored the 1(f) (2006). Rather, the opinion liberally construes the innocent- county seeks forfeiture based section on owner exception to void the operation of 169A.63. the plainly stated forfeiture rule to resolve what it perceives to be the doubt about view, my In this case should be decided application the exception, ultimately dis- by on the relying stating caselaw that for- allowing do not read rule the feiture statutes are generally” “disfavored exception and the any as accommodating and, accordingly, “strictly that we must concerning doubt whether by a car owned statutory] [the construe and re- language may subject be to forfeiture any party solve doubt favor of the chal- under section 169A.63. believe the that the lenging” statute. of such a exception apply does not in this situation. Riley Wagon, v.1987 Station 650 N.W.2d (Minn.2002); Torgelson see also For our purposes, statutory the lan- Ave., Prop. Real Known guage as 17138 880th the stating excep- rule and then the (Minn.2008). 749 N.W.2d 26-27 It also tion is as follows: “A presumed as the appropriate, to forfeiture under this section flects, analytical approach to follow the ... the is convicted designat- driver of the taken in Genin v.1996 Mercury Marquis, upon ed offense which the forfeiture is (Minn.2001) 117-18, based.” Minn.Stat. 7(a)(1). (noting contrary interpretation that “A motor vehicle is not statute that “silent as to who bears forfeiture under this section if its owner any responsibility storage accrued fees can convincing demonstrate prevails when the owner at a forfeiture evidence that the owner did not have actu- proceeding” leg- would “encroach the upon al or constructive vehi- domain”). islature’s Consistent with cle would be used or man- caselaw, court properly interprets sec- ner to law or that took the owner permit tion 169A.63to not steps reasonable use of 7(d). Id., light Laases’ owned vehicle. In the offender.” evidence, of them is “the offend- since one view, in context of entire my In er.” exception ap- statute, the innocent-owner owner,” meaning “the when

plies Second, to, how knew joint ownership case of all in the or have, to, easily but chose use evi- prove exception simple applies language know that did not “the owner” dence is owned in situations when law people, or one of two more steps took offender, reasonable present “the owner” in the or that is the as whom It by “the offender.” defined the prevent use case. When legis- reasons to section applied term “owner” as to me for two plain 169A.63,it that the term means prescribed the innocent-owner draft did not lature vehicle, in- this, person” “a entitled use such as apply cases exception lessees, explained cluding certain jointly owns the vehi- “the offender” when person registered “a the owner” is as nonoffending spouse cle with “the presumptively owner.” Minn.Stat. member. 1(h) (2006). same reading First, the literal definition, legislature specifically de- The subdivision this conclusion. supports ownership clared the interest of vehicle 7(d) regards “the own- language operative jointly by that “is owned two clearly separate as “the offender” er” and the leg- This informs us that people.” Id. persons. Following or classes persons linguistically to address islature knew how plain legislative directive situations. I do think ownership unambiguous provi- to construe *6 can legislature we overlook the chose statutes, § 645.08 sions of simple language addressing not to use this (2006), urge that we take the most I would just six subdivisions owned vehicles at exception of the face reading logical setting in later the same section when me to conclude it This leads value. the as exception applying forth forfeiture or in the case only when applies “the to “the owner” contrast with of- owners, prove all lack multiple fender.” I add that illegal the offender’s use. knowledge obviously competing mindful of owner- reading ship it enacted the subdivi- My is buttressed interests when con- 7’s and third explaining that when sion. Subdivision second guidance ture’s statutes, singular paragraphs address forfeiture of seized ve- “the includes the struing hicles that are to a lease or to a exception’s singular ref- Id. The plural.” Id., security perfected interest. therefore must refer erence to “the owner” (c) (2006). 7(b), fashion, it similar where, here, as there more to all owners limits, imposed including forfeiture And this one owner. conclusion finds than exception, the innocent-owner cases of in the next support further sentence vehicles. It did not. owned ad- specifically That sentence subdivision. “the the situation which offend- dresses opinion agree concurring I with the “a or household member er” is strictly provisions ought forfeiture to be owner,” indicating again legis- construed. But strict construction “dis- exception not intend lature did laws nevertheless allow favored” forfeiture unless the offender is neither the falls “within forfeiture when forfeiture among plural the class of v. single spirit Schug owner nor both letter and the law.” Here, all owners cannot establish Nine Hundred Sixteen Nine Thousand owners. Currency, Fifty Dollars Cents in U.S. lack of (quo- (Minn.App.2003) N.W.2d (Minn. review omitted), denied Minnesota, Dec. Respondent, tation STATE of dismisses county’s argument by treating it as spirit on the relying rather than letter O’MEARA, Appellant. Thomas E. ought we certainly of the law. While No. A07-0825. disregard the letter search I spirit, con- Appeals Court of of Minnesota. plainly the letter presume strue forfei- exceptions plain- to make as only Aug. 7(d). ly articulated subdivision My depends dissent on a literal con- statute; pre-

struction

sume that the the ex- intended

ception apply beyond language of cases, in joint espe-

that section ownership it

cially when imbedded the exception

provision only that makes when the sense is a nonowner. that al-

offender add I see no

though ambiguity, there is statute,

ambiguity in the lies (subdivision 7(d)), in the rule

(subdivision 7(a)). straightfor- Under a review, expressly

ward textual the rule plainly authorizes implied presumption either that is the owner or that the own- illegal

er consents to the offender’s use. no ambiguity

There is to be found here. *7 exception, both is where

majority and concurring opinions suggest ambiguity, exists in the context of If ambig-

the rule. is indeed

uous, apply it is not our prerogative to broadly than its strictest inter- would

pretation allow. case, Ms. Laase was “the offend- reason, apply

er.” For expressly excep-

statute and hold that the

tion does forfeiture of that she owned and impaired. would therefore

verse.