State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Department of Motor Vehicles

• Decision Date: 26 March 1997
• Docket Number: No. B096214,B096214
• Citation: 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 178,53 Cal.App.4th 1076
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2245, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4037 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 178

62 Cal.Rptr.2d 178

53 Cal.App.4th 1076, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2245,

97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4037

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant and Appellant.

No. B096214.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

March 26, 1997.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Martin H. Milas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Silvia M. Diaz, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Jack T. Kerry, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Appellant.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Jo Ann Montoya and Diron Ohanian, Glendale, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BARON, Associate Justice.

Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereafter "State Farm"), filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, seeking, inter alia, an order requiring appellant Department of Motor Vehicles (hereafter "the DMV") to identify a purchaser of a car. The superior court ordered the DMV to release this information, and the DMV appealed. We affirm.

FACTS ¹

In February 1992, Brian Moore leased a new Mercedes Benz 500 SL from the Mercedes Benz Credit Corporation (hereafter "MBCC") and obtained an automobile liability policy for the car from State Farm. In August 1993, Moore placed the car on consignment with Celebrity Motorcars, Ltd., (hereafter "Celebrity"), seeking someone to assume his lease payments. Moore alleges that in October 1993, he discovered that Celebrity Moore told State Farm he had learned that Celebrity had sold his car to an unknown doctor in Malibu (hereafter "the subsequent purchaser"), and Moore made a claim to State Farm for the car. State Farm resolved the claim by paying $87,654.60 to MBCC. In return, Moore and MBCC transferred title to State Farm.

had closed and that his car was missing. When Moore reported the missing car to the police, they purportedly told him that Celebrity had stolen approximately 20 other vehicles. Celebrity's owner later pled guilty to forgery and theft.

When State Farm tried to register the car in its name, the DMV declined to do so. The subsequent purchaser disputed ownership through an attorney, but refused to disclose his or her identity. State Farm requested the subsequent purchaser's identity and address from the DMV, which declined to release the information.

In April 1995, Jo Ann Montoya, an attorney for State Farm, submitted a request to the DMV for the subsequent purchaser's name and address pursuant to Vehicle Code section 1808.22, subdivision (c). The DMV refused to release the information without a court order.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 20, 1995, State Farm filed its petition for writ of mandate in the superior court, requesting an order requiring DMV to identify the subsequent purchaser, and to register the car in State Farm's name. Following a hearing on August 23, 1995, the trial court denied the petition in part, but ordered the DMV to release the requested information. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

The DMV contends that the information State Farm seeks cannot be released under Vehicle Code section 1808.22, subdivision (c). ²

A. Mootness

The issue of mootness arises at the threshold of our discussion because State Farm learned the subsequent purchaser's name and address from a source other than the DMV during the pendency of this appeal. The DMV nonetheless urges us to hear this appeal, contending that the issue presented is one of public significance that requires review.

"If an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot. [Citations.]" (Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales (1973) 8 Cal.3d 712, 715-716, 106 Cal.Rptr. 21, 505 P.2d 213.) The issue presented here reaches privacy concerns of interest not only to the DMV but to the public it serves. Moreover, it is probable that although the issue arises with some frequency, the DMV is left without guidance from an appellate court because, as here, the party seeking information obtains it from another source without litigation. In our view, this appeal presents a matter of continuing public interest that is likely to recur, and thus satisfies the exception to the general rule against deciding issues that are moot.

B. Vehicle Code Section 1808.22, Subdivision (c)

The issue presented concerns the scope of the exception found in Vehicle Code section 1808.22, subdivision (c), to the privacy provisions of the VEHICLE CODE. SECTION 1808.21³, subdivision (a), provides: "Any residence address in any record of the department is confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, except a court, law enforcement agency, or other government agency, or as authorized in Section 1808.22 or 1808.23." Subdivision (c) of section 1808.22 provides: "Section 1808.21 does not apply to an attorney when the attorney states, under penalty of perjury, that the motor vehicle or vessel registered owner or driver residential address information is necessary in order to represent his or her client in a criminal or civil action which directly involves the use of the motor vehicle or vessel that is pending, is to be filed, or is being investigated...."

Here, State Farm's application for address information contained statements, certified by State Farm's counsel, that Celebrity had improperly sold the Mercedes Benz to the subsequent purchaser, that State Farm had acquired Moore's and MBCC's interests in the vehicle when it paid benefits under Moore's policy, and that the address information was needed "to recover the car or otherwise resolve the title issue." State Farm's counsel also certified that the requested information was necessary "to represent [State Farm] in a criminal or civil action, which directly involves the use of the motor vehicle/motorcycle, that is pending, is to be filed, or is being investigated." The DMV nonetheless contends that State Farm's information request falls outside the exception in section 1808.22, subdivision (c), because the action being investigated by State Farm does not "directly involve[ ] the use of the motor vehicle" within the meaning of that exception. ⁴

We review this issue of statutory interpretation de novo. (See Eidsmore v. RBB, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 189, 195, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 357.) "The objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. To accomplish that objective, courts must look first to the words of the statute, giving effect to their plain meaning. If those words are clear, we may not alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history. [Citation.] Whenever possible, we must give effect to every word in a statute and avoid a construction making a statutory term surplusage or meaningless. [Citations.]" (In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1437, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 155.)

We begin by observing that the exception in question permits attorneys to seek information while a civil action "is being investigated," before the facts and the precise claims to be filed in the action are fully known. (§ 1808.22, subd. (c).) The exception thus authorizes the release of address information in situations in which an attorney is investigating a potential claim or cause of action "which directly involves the use of the motor vehicle or vessel ...." (§ 1808.22, subd. (c).)

In view of the facts certified in State Farm's application to the DMV, State Farm clearly has a potential claim for conversion against the subsequent purchaser. " ' "Conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein." ' " (Messerall v. Fulwider (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1329, 245 Cal.Rptr. 548.) One who buys property in good faith from a party lacking title and the right to sell may be liable for conversion. (See Culp v. Signal Van & Storage (1956) 298 P.2d 162, 142 Cal.App.2d Supp. 859, 861, 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, §§ 622, 624, pp. 717-718.) The remedies for conversion include specific recovery of the property, damages, and a quieting of title. (5 Witkin, op. cit. supra, § 611, [53 Cal.App.4th 1082] pp. 708-709.) Finally, an assignee of an original owner's right of possession may state a claim for conversion based on this right. (See Staley v. McClurken (1939) 35 Cal.App.2d 622, 626, 96 P.2d 805.)

Any investigation of this conversion claim would necessarily confront questions of use. Generally, a mere claim of ownership by the subsequent purchaser would not be an act of conversion, absent actual interference with property rights. (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, § 615, pp. 710-712.) State Farm's investigation would thus involve an inquiry into whether the subsequent purchaser had used the vehicle, or assumed control over its use. (See Messerall v. Fulwider, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1329, 245 Cal.Rptr. 548 [to show conversion, " ' "[i]t is not necessary that there be a manual taking of property; it is only necessary to show an assumption of control or ownership over the property, or that the alleged...