Court Opinion

ID: 9735939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:37:19.704514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:02.946641
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
Minnesota’s exemption statute, Minn. Stat. § 550.37 (1986), exempts certain listed property from “attachment, garnishment, or sale on any final process, issued from any court.” Minn.Stat. § 550.37, subd. 1. Exempt property includes “[o]ne motor vehicle to the extent of a value not exceeding $2,000.” Minn.Stat. § 550.37, subd. 12a. The statute also provides that the exemption of certain exempt property, including the motor vehicle exemption, “may not be waived except by a statement in substantially the following form * * Minn. Stat. § 550.37, subd. 19.
In this case, it is undisputed that Moyer’s car qualifies as exempt property and that Moyer never signed a waiver of that exemption. The trial court ruled that the protection afforded by section 550.37 was not applicable because the bank gained possession of Moyer’s car in a peaceful fashion and without resort to the judicial process. The court of appeals dismissed the trial court’s holding, however, on the ground that “[w]e cannot believe the legislature intended to allow the creditor to do by self-help that which it could not do through the judicial process.” Moyer, 385 N.W.2d at 41. I would agree.
It appears to me that when two statutes can be logically read together to carry out legislative intent, they should be so read. The self-help and exemption statutes are not in conflict. By affirming the court of appeals, no impossible or unreasonable burden is placed on the lender to require it to have the statutory waiver executed by the borrower at the time the loan is taken out.
In cases involving attempts to attach summarily or garnish property interests, the United States Supreme Court has been diligent in enforcing the right of debtors to notice and hearing and, therefore, buttressing their ability to protect themselves against illegal takings. See, e.g., North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601, 95 S.Ct. 719, 42 L.Ed.2d 751 (1975). The Supreme Court’s concern was that a debtor whose property is in peril of seizure have the opportunity to utilize intelligently all applicable legal rights to defend against such seizure. Ruling here that Moyer must have executed a waiver of her rights under the exemption statute before those rights could be found to have been waived is an appropriate extension of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions.
Accordingly, the court of appeals should be affirmed.