Opinion
V-8
11-7-1952
PEOPLE v. ONE 1949 FORDCOUPE, etc., et al. * Civ. 18698.
McCarroll & McCarroll and Mary A. McCarroll, Los Angeles, for appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Stanford D. Herlick, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
PEOPLE
v.
ONE 1949 FORD V-8 COUPE, etc., et al. *
Nov. 7, 1952.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1952.
Hearing Granted Jan. 5, 1953.
McCarroll & McCarroll and Mary A. McCarroll, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Stanford D. Herlick, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
VALLEE, Justice.
Appeal by Beverly Finance Company, the legal owner of an automobile, from a judgment decreeing its forfeiture to the state. Appeallant was the assignee of the vendor of the automobile under a conditional sales contract. James Shaffer was the vendee. Mona H. Shaffer was the registered owner. The vehicle was seized while in the custody and control of James Shaffer at a time when he was used it to transport marijuana. A balance of $1,400.12 was unpaid on the contract at the time of seizure.
Section 11620 of the Health and Safety Code provides: 'The claimant of any right, title, or interest in the vehicle may prove his * * * conditional sales contract to be bona fide and that his right, title, or interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the purchaser, and without any knowledge that the vehicle was being, or was to be, used for the purpose charged.'
The principal question below was whether appellant acquired the interest of the vendor in the contract after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of the Shaffers. Appellant made an investigation. There was a question as to whether all of the investigation was made before, or whether part of it was made before and part after, appellant acquired its interest. The court made the following finding: '[T]he right, title and interest of said claimant in and to said vehicle was bona fide and was made without any knowledge that said vehicle was being, or was to be, used in violation of the provisions of law relating to narcotics; that before its right, title and interest in and to said vehicle was acquired by said claimant, said claimant did make an investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation either of said Mona H. Shaffer or of said James William Shaffer, but that said investigation was not reasonable.' Appellant contends the finding is uncertain and unintelligible and does not support the judgment. We agree.
We had occasion to consider this finding in Beverly Finance Co. v. Superior Court, 112 Cal.App.2d 381, 246 P.2d 142. In that case we said, 112 Cal.App.2d at page, 387, 246 P.2d at page 146: 'It does appear that a part of finding V is ambiguous. As above shown, the finding as signed stated in part that the claimant 'did make an investigation of * * * either of said Mona H. Shaffer or of said James William Shaffer, but that said investigation was not reasonable.' (Italics added.)'
It is impossible to determine from the finding whether the investigation was made of Mona Shaffer or of James Shaffer. It is impossible to determine, if the investigation was made of Mona Shaffer, whether all of it was made before, or whether part of it was made before and part after, appellant acquired its interest in the vehicle. The same is true with respect to James Shaffer. The importance of a true and complete finding on the subject is self-evident. Appellant claimed below and says here that all of the investigation was made before it acquired its interest, and that it was reasonable. If the trial judge had made a specific, definite finding we could have considered and decided these questions of law. The result is that there is no finding as to whether appellant's interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character, and reputation of Mona Shaffer; nor is there a finding on the subject with respect to James Shaffer. The findings do not support the judgment.
Reversed.
SHINN, P. J., and WOOD, J., concur. --------------- * Subsequent opinion 257 P.2d 641.