Truck Conversion & Toterhome Community - View Single Post - Court rules: big rig not RV in Ca.(2nd article)

Mike E · 07-18-2003, 05:43 AM

Being a current law student, I read these posts with great interest. I would like to read the actual case but since it's at the trial court level it's very unlikely it will be published. There may not even be a record if Mr Emanuele did not pay for a court reporter or make arrangements for audio recording. On a positive note, because it is at the trial court level it does not set precedent. A different trial judge may rule another way and unless he or she read the times article, would likely be unaware of the ruling. Only the Ca. Court of Appeal and the Ca. Supreme Court can set precedent.

It is unlikely Mr Emanuele will be able to file or be involved in a class action lawsuit unless he can come up with a new cause of action since his case has already been decided. He may be successful if he appeals based on the trial Judge's possible misinterpretation of the law. Mr Emanuele's attorney asserts that the DMV has conflicting codes regarding motor homes. I don't know if this is so since they are not available to the general public (he can obtain them through discovery since he represents a party to the lawsuit). However, that may be irrelevant since the DMV's codes/policies are not binding law unless a judge uses one as a guideline and says it is. At the trial court level it would only be binding in that particular case and can be set aside by a higher court. Binding law comes from statutes and sometimes from regulations if the agency writing the regulation has been specifically authorized by statute to do so (not always the case), and even those may be open to some judicial interpretation depending on how specific they are. The only statute that specifically addresses RV registration is Ca.VC § 362 which only states that , "A 'house car' is a motor vehicle originally designed, or permanently altered, and equipped for human habitation, or to which a camper has been permanently attached. . . A house car shall not be deemed to be a motortruck." What constitutes "human habitation" is not defined and it says nothing about size or trailer towing ability. I did a thorough search in the law library where I work and there is no corresponding regulation or any case law. Therefore, a precise definition by the appellate or Supreme Court or by new legislation is still pending and in the meantime trial court decisions will likely be inconsistent.

The DMV claims that, "Additional rules regarding commercial vehicles must be applied for such a large vehicle because of public safety . . ." However, they rely on the assertion that, "It is a truck tractor because its primary design is to tow trailers. The living quarters are incidental to the primary design of towing a trailer . . ." The first line comes from Ca.VC § 655(a). The provisions in Ca.VC § 362 are intended to be an exception to this and nothing in the statutes supports the DMV contention that living quarters are incidental. That is their own spin. It appears that the ability to tow a trailer is the real sticking point with the DMV, probably out of some misplaced fear that it can and will be used for commercial purposes without giving the state its proper fees (it always comes down to money). I feel strongly that the DMV is not hassling owners with motorhome conversions like Bill's (Warpath) which do not have a 5th wheel. If so, that certainly belies their contention that it is a safety issue based on the vehicle's size (and we all know there are conventional diesel pusher RVs that are very large, but they look like a RV so I guess that placates the DMV). i.e., RV haulers are targeted because they look like commercial tractors. It seems obvious from the legislative notes that the legislative intent was for California citizens to own and enjoy RVs without the hassle and expense of commercial registration, especially in light of the far fewer miles RVs drive compared to commercial trucks, which seems to be the reasoning behind Ca.VC § 362.

Anyway, I hope Mr Emanuele does take his case to the appellate court so we can get a declaratory judgement that clears this up, although that will take years. If that goes against us, perhaps it will spur the legislature to pass a statute that is more specific and overrules any possible adverse decision by the courts.

07-18-2003, 05:43 AM	#5
Mike E Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Yorba Linda, CA, USA Posts: 35	Being a current law student, I read these posts with great interest. I would like to read the actual case but since it's at the trial court level it's very unlikely it will be published. There may not even be a record if Mr Emanuele did not pay for a court reporter or make arrangements for audio recording. On a positive note, because it is at the trial court level it does not set precedent. A different trial judge may rule another way and unless he or she read the times article, would likely be unaware of the ruling. Only the Ca. Court of Appeal and the Ca. Supreme Court can set precedent. It is unlikely Mr Emanuele will be able to file or be involved in a class action lawsuit unless he can come up with a new cause of action since his case has already been decided. He may be successful if he appeals based on the trial Judge's possible misinterpretation of the law. Mr Emanuele's attorney asserts that the DMV has conflicting codes regarding motor homes. I don't know if this is so since they are not available to the general public (he can obtain them through discovery since he represents a party to the lawsuit). However, that may be irrelevant since the DMV's codes/policies are not binding law unless a judge uses one as a guideline and says it is. At the trial court level it would only be binding in that particular case and can be set aside by a higher court. Binding law comes from statutes and sometimes from regulations if the agency writing the regulation has been specifically authorized by statute to do so (not always the case), and even those may be open to some judicial interpretation depending on how specific they are. The only statute that specifically addresses RV registration is Ca.VC § 362 which only states that , "A 'house car' is a motor vehicle originally designed, or permanently altered, and equipped for human habitation, or to which a camper has been permanently attached. . . A house car shall not be deemed to be a motortruck." What constitutes "human habitation" is not defined and it says nothing about size or trailer towing ability. I did a thorough search in the law library where I work and there is no corresponding regulation or any case law. Therefore, a precise definition by the appellate or Supreme Court or by new legislation is still pending and in the meantime trial court decisions will likely be inconsistent. The DMV claims that, "Additional rules regarding commercial vehicles must be applied for such a large vehicle because of public safety . . ." However, they rely on the assertion that, "It is a truck tractor because its primary design is to tow trailers. The living quarters are incidental to the primary design of towing a trailer . . ." The first line comes from Ca.VC § 655(a). The provisions in Ca.VC § 362 are intended to be an exception to this and nothing in the statutes supports the DMV contention that living quarters are incidental. That is their own spin. It appears that the ability to tow a trailer is the real sticking point with the DMV, probably out of some misplaced fear that it can and will be used for commercial purposes without giving the state its proper fees (it always comes down to money). I feel strongly that the DMV is not hassling owners with motorhome conversions like Bill's (Warpath) which do not have a 5th wheel. If so, that certainly belies their contention that it is a safety issue based on the vehicle's size (and we all know there are conventional diesel pusher RVs that are very large, but they look like a RV so I guess that placates the DMV). i.e., RV haulers are targeted because they look like commercial tractors. It seems obvious from the legislative notes that the legislative intent was for California citizens to own and enjoy RVs without the hassle and expense of commercial registration, especially in light of the far fewer miles RVs drive compared to commercial trucks, which seems to be the reasoning behind Ca.VC § 362. Anyway, I hope Mr Emanuele does take his case to the appellate court so we can get a declaratory judgement that clears this up, although that will take years. If that goes against us, perhaps it will spur the legislature to pass a statute that is more specific and overrules any possible adverse decision by the courts.