Can a revocable living trust be charged with a speed camera violation?

[RealJustice]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

My car is owned by a revocable living trust. I am the trustee, but not a beneficiary of the trust

Recently, my car was photographed by an automated speed camera and the owner of the car (the trust) was accused of speeding. Here in Maryland, the owner of the car is responsible for paying (or defending) speed camera citations. The driver is not held responsible.

The automated citation was issued to the trust ("Foobar Revocable Living Trust). In other words, the trust was charged with speeding.

In Maryland, automated speed camera violations are civil charges, by the way.

I am thinking of asking the judge to dismiss the charges on the basis that there is no such person as the "Foobar Revocable Living Trust". Note, also, that there is nothing in the law that provides for a trustee or trust to be charged.

What do you think of my approach? Any other suggestions? Thank you.

 

[cyjeff]

So you are saying that any car owned by a legal entity that is not an individual may be driven without regard for the traffic laws?

All company owned cars and trucks are immune?

 

[RealJustice]

So you are saying that any car owned by a legal entity that is not an individual may be driven without regard for the traffic laws?

All company owned cars and trucks are immune?

In most cases, a citation is issued to the driver of a vehicle, not to the owner. The speed camera law is very unusual in that is specifically holds the owner of the vehicle accountable.

It is well-established that corporations can be charged with crimes. However, I cannot find anything that indicates that a trust be charged with a crime or a civil infraction.

 

[swrdmbo]

Were you driving the car? Were you speeding? If so...just pay the ticket.

Stop wasting everyone's time with this little idea of yours to scam the courts.This will only result in even MORE rules,etc. for revocable trusts.

This is NOT why revocable trusts are created.Quit trying to abuse the intent of them.Ugh!

 

[CdwJava]

You can certainly try this ... but, I suspect the judge will get a good giggle and then bang the gavel saying, "Nice try ... guilty. Pay the fine on your way out."

But, the worst that can probably happen is that the court denies your claim.

- Carl

 

[RealJustice]

Were you driving the car? Were you speeding? If so...just pay the ticket.

Stop wasting everyone's time with this little idea of yours to scam the courts.This will only result in even MORE rules,etc. for revocable trusts.

This is NOT why revocable trusts are created.Quit trying to abuse the intent of them.Ugh!

It is the position of many people that automated speed cameras are nothing more than a scam by government and private companies to turn regular streets into toll roads.

Anyway, I'm asking for legal opinions, not personal opinions. If you're not qualified to give a legal opinion, please don't reply.

 

[tranquility]

There are many laws where the trust is responsible. I do taxes. Trusts pay taxes. What difference?

I advise property owners of income property. Property is in trust. Person gets hurt on property, sues trust. What result?

We can continue, but the same powers of the state over the vehicle registration and collections will be in a trust ownership situation. While the argument may be new because speed cameras are fairly new (I share the cynical theory about taxation over safety.), we all know how the law *must* be. How much time do you have to fight a ticket? You may win if you get a judge who doesn't want to work. Maybe not.

 

[RealJustice]

CDWJava and Tranquility,

Thank you for your thoughtful replies.

Tranquility -- good point about lawsuits involving trusts. Actually, my house is also in the trust, and my homeowners insurance is set up to reflect the fact that my home is owned by the trust, not by me.

I'm definitely going to fight the ticket, as I've already sent in the paperwork to do so. Also, my time to fight the charges on behalf of the trust costs me substantially nothing, so there's really nothing to lose by trying. Obviously, though, I would prefer to prevail.

 

[RealJustice]

I should also mention a case that I saw in "automated red light camera" court a while back. Automated red light camera citations are also "civil" in Maryland and they hold the owner of the car accountable, not the driver (unless the owner tells the court who the driver was, which is rare).

Anyway ... an automated red light citation was issued to a car that was titled in the name of a law firm (let's call it Goldberg & Whiplash). A lawyer from Goldberg and Whiplash made a pretrial motion for dismissal based on the claim that there "is no such person as Goldberg & Whiplash and since the charging document did not name a person, the charges had to be dismissed." The judge thought about it for a few seconds, then dismissed the charges without further comment.

That's where I got the idea to claim that the trust is immune to being charged.

 

[I_Got_Banned]

... the trust is immune to being charged.

I think you're pretty lucky because you'd never ever have to ever pay for a parking ticket ever again...

Good luck!

 

[Maestro64]

Keep in mind State and towns make these tickets Civil matter for a reason, one is no due process is required, and your right as an individual or Legal entity are different from a criminal matter. As we all know many officers of companies have hidden behind the fact that a legal entity can not be placed in jail, however in a civil matters the legal entity can be held responsible for the costs.

I would not hang your hat on the fact that Lawyer argued their way out of a automatic ticket because a person was not identify but a legal entity. There is more to that story which is not public. These systems are cash cows for states and towns, and sometime it is worth letting some people go who you know might challenge its legality.

Remember the states pass laws all the time which turn out not to be legal at all, however, they enforce them until a court finally sets a precedent by saying it is illegal. The way our courts work, you have to be found guilty of a charge to appeal it, so if you know the person is going to appeal a law you do not want to be found illegal, it better to let that one go.

You have to ask yourself, did the judge agree with them or was just easily to say dismiss knowing they might appeal the decision and make a big public issue of automatic tickets which may cost the state money.

 

[patstew]

It is the position of many people that automated speed cameras are nothing more than a scam by government and private companies to turn regular streets into toll roads.

It's my position that they're set up to catch people who are breaking the law.

 

[swrdmbo]

You said "Anyway, I'm asking for legal opinions, not personal opinions. If you're not qualified to give a legal opinion, please don't reply."

Well, sorry to say that you do not get to pick and choose, nor delegate who may answer your post.

If you want exclusive control over where you get your answer, you can pay an attorney for a private consult.

 

[RealJustice]

You said "Anyway, I'm asking for legal opinions, not personal opinions. If you're not qualified to give a legal opinion, please don't reply."

Well, sorry to say that you do not get to pick and choose, nor delegate who may answer your post.

If you want exclusive control over where you get your answer, you can pay an attorney for a private consult.

Fine, I will rephrase my reply to you. If you think that my question is a waste of your time, then please don't take time to answer it.

 

[Zigner]

Fine, I will rephrase my reply to you. If you think that my question is a waste of your time, then please don't take time to answer it.

Sorry - try again.