STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
William J. Otis, et al.,
The W.W. Holes Manufacturing Co.,
d/b/a St. Cloud Marine Outlet, et al.,
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Michael A. Hatch,
W.W. Holes Manufacturing Co.,
d/b/a Marine Outlet, d/b/a Bud Grant's Boat Buying Club; et al.,
Filed August 24, 1999
Sherburne County District Court
File No. C6971018
Kevin F. Gray, Frank J. Rajkowski, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., 11 Seventh Avenue North, Post Office Box 1433, St. Cloud, MN 56302 (for appellants)
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Janette K. Brimmer, Assistant Attorney General, 1100 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-2127 (for respondent State)
Considered and decided by Halbrooks, Presiding Judge, Schumacher, Judge, and Amundson, Judge.
Appellants W.W. Holes Manufacturing Co., d/b/a St. Cloud Marine Outlet, Marine Outlet, Marine Outlet and R.V., and Bud Grant's Boat Buying Club, and James and Holly Marmas (Holes) claim the trial court erred in ordering that funds held in an escrow account be transferred into an account in the name of the State of Minnesota. We affirm.
2. Holes argues that the court impermissibly placed the escrow fund in the state's name. Holes does not challenge the attachment itself, only the placement of the escrow account in the state's name. When reviewing a district court's application of statutory criteria to the facts,
the appellate court may correct erroneous applications of the law. As to the trial court's conclusions on the ultimate issues, mindful of the discretion accorded the trial court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, the reviewing court reviews under an abuse of discretion standard.
Maxfield v. Maxfield, 452 N.W.2d 219, 221 (Minn. 1990). In addition, statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review. See Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn. 1985).
The law of attachment in Minnesota is found in Minnesota Statutes chapter 570 (1998). Of particular relevance to this case are Minn. Stat. §§ 570.051, subd. 1 and .061, subd. 3 (1998). The first of these two sections addresses requirements of the order for attachment. Minn. Stat. § 570.051, subd. 1. The language does not specifically prohibit the court from placing an escrow account in the state's name. Because the language in subd. 1 is discretionary, Holes has not shown a clear abuse of discretion. This court does not reverse absent a clear abuse of discretion. Nadeau v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Minn. 1979).
The second relevant section of the statute in question is Minn. Stat. § 570.061, subd. 3 (directing execution on personal property). Holes argues that this statute, in combination with the others it incorporates, required the court to put the account in the sheriff's name. This requirement is not provided for in the statute, and Holes does not point to where the requirement lies. Nor do the statutes prohibit placing an account in a party's name.
Holes also argues that putting the account in the state's name violates due process. Attachments have been challenged as unconstitutional, but both the Minnesota and United States Supreme Courts have found that they are constitutional, so long as they follow narrow guidelines and the defendant has an opportunity for a hearing. See, e.g., Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 614-17, 94 S. Ct. 1895, 1903-04 (1974) (prejudgment sequestration statute constitutional); International State Bank v. Gamer, 281 N.W.2d 855, 857-59 (Minn. 1979) (Minn. Stat. § 570.02 constitutional). Holes was offered a hearing on the state's request . In addition, the funds are still in escrow, have not been released or disbursed to anyone, and are still subject to the original escrow agreement. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by placing the account in the state's name.