Opinion ID: 1959678
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Meaning of Owner.

Text: With these principles in mind, we turn first to the question whether Ms. Tesfamariam was an owner of the taxicab to which her husband held title. As we stated in James Parreco & Son v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 567 A.2d 43 (D.C.1989)a decision on which the Insurance Administration relies [t]he primary rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature is to be found in the language which it has used. Moreover, the words of the statute should be construed according to their ordinary sense, and with the meaning commonly attributed to them. The words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary and ordinarily the most reliable source of interpreting the meaning of any writing. Id. 567 A.2d at 46 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We do not believe that the ALJ could reasonably conclude that Ms. Tesfamariam was the owner of her husband's taxi, or that she had the property or title to it, in the ordinary everyday sense of these words. The owner of a vehicle is a person who can sell it; obviously, Ms. Tesfamariam could not transfer this vehicle while her husband, as the registered owner, had the right to dispose of it without consulting her. See D.C.Code § 30-201 ([t]he fact that a person is or was married shall not . . . impair the right[s] ... of such person, to hold and dispose of ... property of any kind . . .). The owner of a car must ensure, among other things, not only that the vehicle is insured, but also that it is registered, id. § 40-102(a), and periodically inspected, id. § 40-201, as required by law. If Ms. Tesfamariam was not the vehicle's owner for these purposes and she surely was not [4] it is difficult to discern why she should be treated as its owner for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute. See Edwards v. United States, 583 A.2d 661, 664 (D.C.1990) (the same words, when used twice in the same or related legislation, are ordinarily presumed to have the same meaning). The Insurance Administration focuses on the statutory definition of owner as a person who has  the property or title to the vehicle. D.C.Code § 35-2102(21) (emphasis added). It contends that each word in the statute must be given effect, that no word may be treated as superfluous, see 2A NORMAN J. SINGER, SUTHERLAND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 46.06, at 119-20 (5th ed. 1992), that property therefore means something different from title, and that the ALJ reasonably concluded that Ms. Tesfamariam had a property interest in the cab other than legal title and was thus one of its owners. The statute does not provide, however, that anyone with a property interest is an owner; rather, it uses the definite article ( the property or title). [5] It is difficult to discern how Ms. Tesfamariam could be viewed as having the property in a taxi which her husband used in his business as a cabdriver, over which he had sole control, to which he had sole title, and which he could sell or transfer without Ms. Tesfamariam's permission. Considering the ordinary meaning of the word owner, the use of the definite article in the statutory definition ( i.e. the property), and the other circumstances discussed above, we do not think that Ms. Tesfamariam was an owner of the taxi within the meaning of the statute. In ruling that the vehicle was marital property, and that Ms. Tesfamariam was therefore an owner, the ALJ relied chiefly on Hemily v. Hemily, 403 A.2d 1139 (D.C.1979). Hemily was decided pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-910 (1989), which governs the distribution of property in a decree of divorce. The ALJ found in divorce law a strong presumption that property acquired during the marriage was jointly owned. See Hemily, supra, 403 A.2d at 1143 n. 3. Gleaning from the record that Ms. Tesfamariam and her husband were married in June 1986, and that Mr. Woldu had purchased the car shortly before the accident in January 1988, the ALJ inferred that the vehicle had been acquired during the parties' marriage. He also attempted to analogize from other factors enumerated in § 16-910 as relevant to equitable distribution of marital property, and he cited Ms. Tesfamariam's monetary and other contributions to the marriage. Noting Ms. Tesfamariam's testimony that she turned over her earnings to her husband to pay the family bills, the ALJ inferred that she had also helped to pay the expenses for operating the automobile. Finally, the ALJ concluded, on the basis of his examination of divorce law, that the fact that the car was not titled in Ms. Tesfamariam's name was not dispositive of the issue of ownership. In our view, the ALJ erred in attempting to draw from the statute governing equitable distribution of property in a divorce proceeding, § 16-910, the meaning of owner as used in the Uninsured Motorist Fund statute. [6] In enacting ... § 16-910(b), the legislature sought to [enhance] the authority of Superior Court judges to reach equitable results in divorce property dispositions without requiring the court to search for strict legal or equitable ownership interests in the non-titled spouse. Hemily, supra, 403 A.2d at 1142; see also Gore v. Gore, 638 A.2d 672, 674-76 (D.C.1994). To put it in the vernacular, the equitable distribution statute is not primarily concerned with who owned what during the marriage; rather, it addresses who will get what after the marriage is over. If the legislature had intended that the spouse of the owner of the vehicle, or a member of the owner's household, should be precluded from recovery against the Fund, it could easily have said so. The Insurance Administration is thus asking us to read into the statute a provision which the Council did not enact. As Justice Brandeis wrote in Iselin v. United States, 270 U.S. 245, 46 S.Ct. 248, 70 L.Ed. 566 (1926), [w]hat the government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function. Id. 270 U.S. at 251, 46 S.Ct. at 218, see also West Virginia Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 101, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 1148, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991); Byrd v. United States, 598 A.2d 386, 393 (D.C.1991) (en banc).