Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

City of Portland v. Diaz

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 13, 2017

CITY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JUSTIN LOUIS DIAZ, Defendant, and ELIABLE CREDIT ASSOCIATION, INC., Intervenor-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted March 16, 2017.

         Multnomah County Circuit Court 15PK42190; A161433 Benjamin S. Johnston, Judge pro tempore.

          Kimberley Hanks McGair argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Farleigh Wada Witt.

          Julia Glick argued the cause and fled the brief for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Wilson, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary: Intervenor, Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (Reliable), appeals the trial court's order denying its motion under Multnomah Circuit Court Supplementary Rule 17.035(3) for release of an impounded car in which it claims a security interest. The city responds that the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction, as the order that Reliable appeals is not appealable under ORS 19.205(2). Held: The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. The order that Reliable appealed is not appealable under ORS 19.205 because the order is not a judgment and thus is not appealable under ORS 19.205(1), is not an order that "prevent[ed] a judgment in the action" under ORS 19.205(2), and does not affect a "substantial right" under ORS 19.205(3).

         [289 Or. 362] LAGESEN, J.

         In this parking violation case arising from the City of Portland, intervenor Reliable Credit Association, Inc. (Reliable), appeals an order denying its motion under Multnomah Circuit Court Supplementary Local Rule (SLR) 17.035(3) for release of an impounded car in which it claims a security interest. But the order that Reliable appeals is not appealable under ORS 19.205. We therefore must dismiss the appeal.

         By supplementary local rule, Multnomah County has created a process by which the city may obtain a court order authorizing the towing and impoundment of a vehicle for unpaid parking citations. SLR 17.035(1) (effective Feb 1, 2016).[1] The rule also provides mechanisms to obtain the release of impounded cars, including a special mechanism available to a "subsequent bona fide purchaser for value" of an impounded car:

"A subsequent bona fide purchaser for value of a vehicle that is towed and impounded under an order of the court for unpaid financial obligations which all relate to the prior owner of the vehicle, other than citations incident to the towing, may request an ex parte hearing to apply for an order for the release of the vehicle from the impoundment order without complying with the requirement of section (2) of this rule [that the person post the total amount of unpaid financial obligations associated with unpaid parking citations]."

SLR 17.035(3)(a). Whether to grant any such request for release is discretionary with the trial court: "Following the hearing [required by the rule], the court may release the vehicle to the subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without requiring payment of the outstanding financial obligations by the prior registered owner arising from unpaid parking citations owed on the vehicle." SLR 17.035(3)(b) [289 Or. 363] (emphasis added). If the court denies a request for release under SLR 17.035(3), "then the person may only proceed under section (2) of this rule for a hearing." SLR 17.035 (3)(b). SLR 17.035(2), in turn, provides:

"Requests for a court hearing on the validity of a parking citation after receipt of an impoundment notice, or after impoundment, must be made personally at the Multnomah County Courthouse. All requests must include the posting of the total amount of the financial obligations against the vehicle for parking citations that are unpaid in full or in part applicable at the time of the request, unless waived by the judge."

         Thus, a person who has failed to persuade the trial court to release an impounded vehicle under SLR 17.035(3) must then request a hearing under SLR 17.035(2) and first post the amount of unpaid financial obligations, unless the court agrees to waive that requirement.

         In this case, defendant Diaz, who has not appeared on appeal, accrued a large number of parking tickets but did not pay them. This resulted in a large number of parking violation cases against him, including the instant case, which led to the city obtaining a court order to impound Diaz's car. After the trial court entered a default judgment against Diaz and the city impounded the car, Reliable, which claims a security interest in the car, intervened[2] by filing a motion under SLR 17.035(3) for release of the car. Reliable asserted that it was a "subsequent bona fide purchaser for value" under the terms of that provision, entitling it to release of the car without having to pay the fine and fees incurred by defendant. The trial court denied the motion by order. Reliable appealed that order, asserting that this court has jurisdiction under ORS 19.205(2) and assigning ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.