Court Opinion

ID: 9713175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:10:11.889963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.322997
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE STOUDER, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with that part of the majority’s opinion which reverses the judgment of the trial court holding that the defendant was not the owner of the motor vehicle. In my view of the record, the trial court’s decision the defendant was not the owner of the motor vehicle is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In other words, I believe the majority’s holding that as a matter of law the defendant was the owner of the motor vehicle is in error. As shown by the record, prior to the registration of the motor vehicle in the name of David J. Bielunski, the defendant, the vehicle was registered in the name of John C. Bielunski, the defendant’s father. According to the testimony of both the defendant and his father, the vehicle title was transferred to the son because the increase in insurance rates resulting from David’s driving record would have applied not only to the vehicle in question but to other vehicles owned by the father. This evidence is undisputed and uncontradicted. The credibility of the testimony was not questioned. In addition the assertion by the defendant and his father that no change in ownership occurred at the time the title to the car was transferred from the father to the son is unrefuted. Under this state of the evidence, I believe there is ample evidence to support the conclusion of the trial court that John C. Bielunski was the owner of the vehicle. To hold otherwise, as does the majority, is to disregard entirely the evidence supporting the judgment of the trial com t. This is one of those cases where at best a factual dispute existed and its resolution was within the province of the trial court. The majority appears to view the evidence as if the State were a creditor entitled to rely on the registration of the vehicle as irrefutable evidence of ownership. However, the State is not in the position of a creditor. It did not rely on the car registration to its detriment, and the arrangement between the parties at the time it occurred did not and could not have been a fraud against the State. In this connection it should be noted that an Iowa court in an action between the defendant and his father declared the father to be the owner of the vehicle. While this event took place after the arrest in this case and the State of Illinois was not a party to the proceeding, it is additional evidence supporting the trial court’s judgment. In summary, I believe the trial court’s judgment denying forfeiture of the vehicle because of nonownership by the defendant is supported by sufficient evidence, and I would therefore affirm the judgment.