KAUGER, J.;
T1 The dispositive issue presented
is whether the $25.00 monthly maintenance fee limitation set forth in 47 O.S8. Supp. 2013 § 6-212.3
for an interlock device installed in vehicles, precludes the collection of lease/rental fees, taxes, and insurance/damage waiver fees, etc. in excess of $25.00. We hold that the $25.00 maintenance fee cap set forth in 47 0.8. Supp. 2018 § 6-212.8 does not preclude the collection of other fees such as rental fees, taxes, or msurance/damage waiver fees, etc.
FACTS ~
2 On July 18, 2012, the plaintiff/appellant, Nathan Heath (Heath/driver) was arrested on a complaint of driving under the influence of alcohol in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,. [Apparently, this was his second arrest for driving under the influence after an arrest sometime in 2009, also in Oklahoma County.] He pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, and received a three (8) year deferred sentence. On August 11, 2012, he again drove intoxicated and this time crashed into a parked car. He was charged with, and pled guilty to, another three (8) year deferred sentence, After Heath failed to pay supervision fees, perform community service work, attend a live victim impact panel and obtain alcohol/drug assessments, arrest warrants were issued for violation of his deferred sentences.
13 As a result of both the July 18, 2012, and August 11, 2012, convictions, the Okla
homa Department of Public Safety revoked Heath's drivers Heense on August 17, 2012, and on September 10, 2012, respectively. Subsequently, Heath obtained a restricted license which permitted him to drive only vehicles equipped with a Board of Tests for Aleohol and Drug Influence (Board of Tests) approved ignition interlock device.
T 4 On December 20, 2613, Heath contracted with the defendant/appellee, Guardian Interlock (Guardian) to install and maintain in Heath's car an interlock device known as the Guardian Interlock Ignition Interlock System (interlock device). The lease term was from December 20, 20183, to December 20, 2018. The monthly rental payments under the lease was $39.99 (plus sales tax). Additionally, the inception of the lease required the following payments:
Installation Charge «$85.00
First Monthly or Bi-Monthly Payment $89.99
Sales Tax $9.63
Total Due $134.62
The total payments under the lease were listed as follows: |
Installation Fee $91.28
Total of All Monfifly or Bi-Monthly Monitoring Visit Fees $2,627.71
Total of All Lease Payments $2,600.35
De-Installation Fee . ' $50,00 _,
Total of All Other Fees and Charges $0.00
Total of All Payments under Lease $5,869.34
¶5 The lease also had a maintenance clause in which the lessee was directed to schedule and keep monthly or bi-monthly monitoring appointments.
Heath also accepted a loss/damage waiver agreement for a charge of $5.00 a month which would release him from any liability for theft or damage to the interlock device. It appears the total amount of Heath's monthly payment is $75.40 a month, as evidenced by receipts for his payments, even though this amount is not reflected on the face of the lease.
T6 On September 2, 2014, Heath filed a Class Action Petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County against Guardian. Heath argued that: 1) pursuant to 47 0.8. Supp. 2013,
DUI offenders with revoked driving privileges are allowed to only drive vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device; 2) the statute limits the monthly maintenance fee on such devices to $25.00; and 3) Heath argues that he has had an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle since December of 2013, but has to pay a $39.00 lease payment, a $25.00 maintenance/monitoring fee, $5.41 in sales tax, and a $5.00 damage waiver.
T7 On February 27, 2015, Guardian filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the undisputed facts establish that Heath has never been charged in excess of $25.00 for maintenance and that anything else he was charged was not a maintenance fee and thus not limited by the express language of the statute. On May 1, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for summary judg
ment. In an order filed May 12, 2015, the trial court granted Guardian's motion for summary judgment, Heath appealed on June 10, 2015,
T8 On June 15, 2015, the Court requested the Oklahoma Attorney General to respond to Heath's appeal. We retained the cause on June 23, 2015. The Attorney General responded on July 6, 2015, arguing that: 1) the ordinary meaning of "maintenance fee" does not include charges for other goods and other services; 2) the petitioner's reading of the statute is unreasonable; and 8) the petitioner's interpretation is contrary to the public policy intended to be advanced by the Legislature. The briefing cyele was completed on August 17, 2015, and the cause was ass1gned on October 16, 2015.
THE $25.00 MAINTENANCE FEE CAP SET FORTH IN 47 0.8. Supp. 2018 § 6-2123 DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COLLECTION OF OTHER FEES SUCH AS RENTAL FEES, TAXES, OR INSURANCE/DAMAGE WAIVER FEES, ETC.
19 Title 47 0.8. Supp. 2005 § 6-212.83 was enacted in 2005 and it provided in pertinent part:
E. The person [restricted Hcensed driver] shall pay the monthly maintenance 'fee for each ignition interlock device installed pursuant to this section. The person shall comply with all provisions of law regarding interlocutory devices.... ignition
It was amended effective November 1, 2011, to provide in pertinent part:
F. The person [restricted lHcensed driver] shall pay the monthly maintenance fee, not to exceed Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) per month, for each ignition interlock device installed pursuant to this seetion. . The person shall comply with all provisions of law regarding ignition interlock devices..
The statute was again amended in 2012 and 2018, but the pertinent portions remain unchanged since 2011. Consequently, we reference the current 2018 version.
110 Heath argues that the legislative intent and statutory history show that the $25.00 maintenance fee limitation in § 6-212.8 was intended to apply to any and all fees. In support of his argument, Heath contends that: 1) the statute was amended in 2011 to provide a cost limitation of $25.00 which did not exist before; 2) the bill, as introduced, did not include a $25.00 cap, but the cap was added by the house-committee; 8) four bill summaries provide that the "cost" or "fee" for each interlock device would not exceed $25.00 a month without any mention of "maintenance;" and 4) the bill's author stated on the Senate floor that while he believed companies were currently charging $70.00 or so a month, the 'bill would eut that down to $25.00.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
KAUGER, J.;
T1 The dispositive issue presented
is whether the $25.00 monthly maintenance fee limitation set forth in 47 O.S8. Supp. 2013 § 6-212.3
for an interlock device installed in vehicles, precludes the collection of lease/rental fees, taxes, and insurance/damage waiver fees, etc. in excess of $25.00. We hold that the $25.00 maintenance fee cap set forth in 47 0.8. Supp. 2018 § 6-212.8 does not preclude the collection of other fees such as rental fees, taxes, or msurance/damage waiver fees, etc.
FACTS ~
2 On July 18, 2012, the plaintiff/appellant, Nathan Heath (Heath/driver) was arrested on a complaint of driving under the influence of alcohol in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma,. [Apparently, this was his second arrest for driving under the influence after an arrest sometime in 2009, also in Oklahoma County.] He pled guilty to one count of driving under the influence of alcohol, and received a three (8) year deferred sentence. On August 11, 2012, he again drove intoxicated and this time crashed into a parked car. He was charged with, and pled guilty to, another three (8) year deferred sentence, After Heath failed to pay supervision fees, perform community service work, attend a live victim impact panel and obtain alcohol/drug assessments, arrest warrants were issued for violation of his deferred sentences.
13 As a result of both the July 18, 2012, and August 11, 2012, convictions, the Okla
homa Department of Public Safety revoked Heath's drivers Heense on August 17, 2012, and on September 10, 2012, respectively. Subsequently, Heath obtained a restricted license which permitted him to drive only vehicles equipped with a Board of Tests for Aleohol and Drug Influence (Board of Tests) approved ignition interlock device.
T 4 On December 20, 2613, Heath contracted with the defendant/appellee, Guardian Interlock (Guardian) to install and maintain in Heath's car an interlock device known as the Guardian Interlock Ignition Interlock System (interlock device). The lease term was from December 20, 20183, to December 20, 2018. The monthly rental payments under the lease was $39.99 (plus sales tax). Additionally, the inception of the lease required the following payments:
Installation Charge «$85.00
First Monthly or Bi-Monthly Payment $89.99
Sales Tax $9.63
Total Due $134.62
The total payments under the lease were listed as follows: |
Installation Fee $91.28
Total of All Monfifly or Bi-Monthly Monitoring Visit Fees $2,627.71
Total of All Lease Payments $2,600.35
De-Installation Fee . ' $50,00 _,
Total of All Other Fees and Charges $0.00
Total of All Payments under Lease $5,869.34
¶5 The lease also had a maintenance clause in which the lessee was directed to schedule and keep monthly or bi-monthly monitoring appointments.
Heath also accepted a loss/damage waiver agreement for a charge of $5.00 a month which would release him from any liability for theft or damage to the interlock device. It appears the total amount of Heath's monthly payment is $75.40 a month, as evidenced by receipts for his payments, even though this amount is not reflected on the face of the lease.
T6 On September 2, 2014, Heath filed a Class Action Petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County against Guardian. Heath argued that: 1) pursuant to 47 0.8. Supp. 2013,
DUI offenders with revoked driving privileges are allowed to only drive vehicles equipped with an ignition interlock device; 2) the statute limits the monthly maintenance fee on such devices to $25.00; and 3) Heath argues that he has had an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle since December of 2013, but has to pay a $39.00 lease payment, a $25.00 maintenance/monitoring fee, $5.41 in sales tax, and a $5.00 damage waiver.
T7 On February 27, 2015, Guardian filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the undisputed facts establish that Heath has never been charged in excess of $25.00 for maintenance and that anything else he was charged was not a maintenance fee and thus not limited by the express language of the statute. On May 1, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for summary judg
ment. In an order filed May 12, 2015, the trial court granted Guardian's motion for summary judgment, Heath appealed on June 10, 2015,
T8 On June 15, 2015, the Court requested the Oklahoma Attorney General to respond to Heath's appeal. We retained the cause on June 23, 2015. The Attorney General responded on July 6, 2015, arguing that: 1) the ordinary meaning of "maintenance fee" does not include charges for other goods and other services; 2) the petitioner's reading of the statute is unreasonable; and 8) the petitioner's interpretation is contrary to the public policy intended to be advanced by the Legislature. The briefing cyele was completed on August 17, 2015, and the cause was ass1gned on October 16, 2015.
THE $25.00 MAINTENANCE FEE CAP SET FORTH IN 47 0.8. Supp. 2018 § 6-2123 DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE COLLECTION OF OTHER FEES SUCH AS RENTAL FEES, TAXES, OR INSURANCE/DAMAGE WAIVER FEES, ETC.
19 Title 47 0.8. Supp. 2005 § 6-212.83 was enacted in 2005 and it provided in pertinent part:
E. The person [restricted Hcensed driver] shall pay the monthly maintenance 'fee for each ignition interlock device installed pursuant to this section. The person shall comply with all provisions of law regarding interlocutory devices.... ignition
It was amended effective November 1, 2011, to provide in pertinent part:
F. The person [restricted lHcensed driver] shall pay the monthly maintenance fee, not to exceed Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) per month, for each ignition interlock device installed pursuant to this seetion. . The person shall comply with all provisions of law regarding ignition interlock devices..
The statute was again amended in 2012 and 2018, but the pertinent portions remain unchanged since 2011. Consequently, we reference the current 2018 version.
110 Heath argues that the legislative intent and statutory history show that the $25.00 maintenance fee limitation in § 6-212.8 was intended to apply to any and all fees. In support of his argument, Heath contends that: 1) the statute was amended in 2011 to provide a cost limitation of $25.00 which did not exist before; 2) the bill, as introduced, did not include a $25.00 cap, but the cap was added by the house-committee; 8) four bill summaries provide that the "cost" or "fee" for each interlock device would not exceed $25.00 a month without any mention of "maintenance;" and 4) the bill's author stated on the Senate floor that while he believed companies were currently charging $70.00 or so a month, the 'bill would eut that down to $25.00.
{11 Guardian argues that the plain language of 47 0.8. Supp. 2018 § 6-212,3
show that it only applies to maintenance fees and that because the statute's plain, ordinary meaning is clear, no further analysis of the statute is necessary. Nevertheless, Guardian also contends that: 1) the Board of Tests, and the Tax Commission also interpret § 6-212.8 as applying only to maintenance fees; and 2) public policy requires that statute to be 'read as applying only to maintenance fees because no company would offer such devices or could afford to offer such devices in Oklahoma without being able to recoup their costs of providing and maintaining such devices.
[ 12 In addition to the testimony of both the past and current director of the Board of Tests stating that the statute applies only to maintenance fees,
Guardian provides the
webpage of the Board of Tests regarding Ignition Interlocutory Devices and it provides in pertinent part:
Service Centers
The BOT approves and physically inspects ignition interlock service centers on an annual basis, A license is issued to each service center. Should you question whether a. service center is, properly licensed, you can ask to see the license or contact the BOT for license verification. Ignition interlock devices are. leased and serviced through a statewide network of licensed service centers, The lease and service agreement may include fees for installation, monthly service, and removal of the ignition interlock device. Other fees may be assessed by the service center for rescheduling, violation resets, permanent lockouts, ete. You are encouraged to contact the manufacturer to inquire about types and costs of fees,. (Emphasis in original) l
Guardian also submits a letter from the Oklahoma Tax Commission to the Oklahoma Ignition Interlock Association which states that in addition to the $25.00 maintenance fee, it is anticipated that most providers will charge additional rates for rental and labor charges and that the $25.00 maintenance fee is subject to sales tax.
$18 We agree with Guardlan that the statute is unambiguous and that Heath's attempts to look behind the unambiguous statute are thwarted by clear and concise Oklahoma law regarding statutory construe tion. Unlike Congress, or some other states, the Oklahoma Legislature does not maintain an extensive legislative record or history of legislative matters
Even if we had such a legislative record or history, when confronted with a statute that is plain and unambiguous on its face, we would not look to such legislative history as a guide to its meaning because looking beyond an unambiguous statute to legislative history would only create ambiguity, not resolve it.
Nor would we look to the testimony of individual lawmakers.
¶ 14 Only where the legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language, i.e. in cases of ambiguity or conflict, are rules of statutory construction employed.
Intent is ascertained from the whole act considering its general purpose and objective with relevant provisions considered together to give full force and effect to each.
The Court presumes that the Legislature expressed its intent and that it intended what it expressed.
Statutes are. .interpreted to attain that purpose,
championing the broad public policy purposes underlying them.
In the absence of a. contrary definition used in a legislative act, we must assume that the lawmaking authority intended for them to have the same meaning as that attributed to them in ordinary and usual parlance.
¶ 15 The overall purpose of the restricted driving statutes does not appear tó be to save drivers with a restricted license money on all fees and costs associated-with an interlock ignition device. This is evidenced in 47 O.S. Supp. 2013 § 6-212.3(A) which clearly states that “the Department [of Public Safety] shall require the installation of an ignition interlock device, at the expense of the person, as
provided in subsection D of this section.”
Subsection D states that “upon payment of a restricted driver license fee of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) -and all other appropriate fees by the person.”
The Legislature has clearly chosen to limit only the amount of the maintenance fee which has been required since the statute’s-inception.
¶ 16 Rather, the obvious purpose and objective of the statute is to ensure that a convicted drunk driver does not continue to put themselves and others at risk by their reckless behavior. Requiring installment of an interlock device clearly attempts to curtail such a risk and -reckless behavior. In the context of motor. vehicles and associated equipment, “maintenance” means “the upkeep of property.or equipment and “maintain” means to. keep -in good condition by making repairs, correcting problems, etc.”
This ordinary definition is distinguished from comjnqnly used terms like sale, rental, lease, installation, and even taxes. ,
[7] ¶ 17 The Legislature could have; easily and clearly; limited-fees related to rent: al/lease, installation and/or .taxes, but it did not do so.
We decline to do so.
To do so,
would render the Legislature's use of the word "maintenance" meaningless, irrelevant and superfluous.
Rather, we give effect to the clear meaning of the statute's unambiguous language.
The $25.00 maintenance fee cap set forth in 47 0.8. Supp. 2018 § 6-212.8 does not preclude the collection of other fees such as rental fees, taxes, or insurance/damage waiver fees.
CONCLUSION
¶ 18 Only where the Legislative intent cannot be ascertained from the statutory language, i.e. in cases of ambiguity or conflict, are rules of statutory construction employed.
Statutes are interpreted to attain that purpose,
championing the broad public policy purposes underlying them.
In the absence of a contrary definition used in a legislative act, we must assume that the lawmaking authority intended for them to have the same meaning as that attributed to them in ordinary and usual parlance.
¶ 19 Requiring installment of an interlock device is an attempt to curtail the behavior of convicted drunk drivers who continue to put themselves and others at risk. The ordinary definition of "maintenance" means the upkeep of property or equipment or to keep in good condition by making repairs, correcting problems, ete. which is distinguished from commonly used terms like sale, rental, lease, installation, and even taxes. The Legislature could have, but did not limit fees related to rental/lease, installation and/or taxes, nor is it our place to do so. Accordingly, we hold that the $25.00 maintenance fee cap set forth in 47 O.S8. Supp. 2018 § 6-212.8 does not preclude the collection of other fees such as rental fees, taxes, or insurance/damage walver fees.
REIF, C.J, COMBS, V.C.J., KAUGER, WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON, TAYLOR, COLBERT, GURICH, JJ., concur.,
WATT, J., not voting.