legal opinion letter.docx

7/21/2019 Legal Opinion Letter.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/legal-opinion-letterdocx 1/13

Legal Opinion Letter – Legal Writing Assignment I

To: Ms. Debra Hansen

From: Jason MacLeod, Attorne at La!

Date: A"g"st #$, #%%&

'(: T)e *)arges Against +o", File o. %-/0&11

Dear Ms. Hansen,

T)an2 o" 3or meeting !it) me t)is past !ee2. In t)is letter, I !ill pro4ide o" !it) m

legal opinion and analsis so o" can ma2e a 5"ali3ied decision regarding t)e c)arges

o" 3ace. I !ill 3irst restate t)e 3acts, as I 2no! t)em, to con3irm t)eir acc"rac. e6t, I

!ill pro4ide o" !it) an e6planation o3 t)e la! as it applies in o"r case, and lastl, gi4e

o" m opinion on !)et)er con4iction o3 being in 7p)sical control o3 a 4e)icle "nder

t)e in3l"ence8 is a potentialit.

On t)e nig)t o3 t)e incident, o" and o"r da"g)ter, Ms. 9"r2e, !ere attending a

3riends barbec"e. At t)at e4ent, o" )ad se4eral drin2s 2no!ing t)at o"r se4enteen

ear old da"g)ter !as going to dri4e o" )ome. A3ter lea4ing t)e barbec"e, o" and o"r

da"g)ter !ere )eading )ome on a rain 3ree!a. As o"r da"g)ter t"rned to e6it t)e

3ree!a, t)e cell p)one rang. +o"r da"g)ter attempted to ans!er t)e p)one, despite

o"r instr"ctions, and s)e lost control o3 t)e car on t)e !et road. T)e car sp"n and

stopped )al3!a on t)e s)o"lder o3 t)e o33ramp 3acing t)e !rong direction. +o"

instr"cted )er to bac2 "p t)e car onto t)e s)o"lder !)ere"pon o" stated o" !anted to

dri4e. +o"r intent !as to get o" and o"r da"g)ter )ome sa3el. +o"r )o"se !as onl a

)al3mile a!a. A3ter mo4ing t)e car onto t)e s)o"lder, 3i4e 3eet 3rom t)e 3ree!a, o"r

da"g)ter got o"t o3 t)e car !)ile o" mane"4ered into t)e dri4ing seat. T)e 2es !ere in

t)e ignition, t)e transmission !as in re4erse, and o" ne4er too2 o"r 3oot o33 t)e brea2.

Here, t)e police o33icer came "p to o"r car. +o" told t)e o33icer t)at o" onl !anted to



get )ome 3ear3"l 3or o"r da"g)ter;s sa3et. T)e o33icer re5"ested an onsite

9reat)al<er, !)ic) o" re3"sed= at t)is point, t)e o33icer arrested o". T)e 9reat)al<er

later administered at t)e police station s)o!ed a %./0> blood alco)ol content ?9A*@.

T)e tate o3 Was)ington m"st pro4e t!o re5"irements to satis3 con4iction. First, t)at

o" )ad a 9A* o3 .%-> or more. econd, t)at o" !ere in p)sical control o3 t)e 4e)icle

"nder t)e in3l"ence. 'egrettabl, o"r 9A* le4el !as t!ice t)e legal limit. T)ere3ore, o"

satis3 t)is 3irst re5"irement. T)e second re5"irement, being in p)sical control o3

4e)icle, is o"r main area o3 3oc"s.

To simpli3 *ase la!, pro4ing p)sical control re5"ires t)at o" )ad t)e means and

intent to operate t)e 4e)icle. In o"r case, o" !ere in t)e dri4er;s seat !it) t)e 2es in

t)e ignition= t)e car !as in !or2ing condition and r"nning= o"r e6pressed intent !as todri4e )ome= and t)e transmission !as in re4erse. Bnless t)e o33icer came to t)e scene,

o" !o"ld )a4e dri4en )ome. Cro4ing ot)er!ise !o"ld be di33ic"lt. I3 !e !ere able to

pro4e t)at o" didn;t )a4e p)sical control o3 t)e 4e)icle, t)e c)arges !o"ld be dropped.

Bn3ort"natel, t)e tate !ill most li2el establis) t)at o" )ad p)sical control. I3 !e

are "nable to pro4e ot)er!ise, t)ere is a de3ense t)at !e can "se to stri2e do!n t)e

c)arge.

To establis) t)is de3ense, !e m"st pro4e to t)e "r t)at o"r 4e)icle !as 7sa3el o33 t)e

road!a8 be3ore t)e o33icer arri4ed on t)e scene. In o"r case, t)e o33icer came "pon

o"r car a3ter o"r da"g)ter mo4ed it to t)e s)o"lder. Once o"r 4e)icle idled on t)e

s)o"lder, !e can ass"me t)e "r !ill concl"de o"r car !as o33 t)e road!a. T)e ne6t

c)aracteristic o3 t)is de3ense is pro4ing t)at o"r car !as sa3el o33 t)e road!a.

T)e "r !ill decide i3 o"r car !as sa3el sit"ated b e6amining !)et)er it posed a

danger to t)e p"blic. A prior co"rt decision 3o"nd t)at a car idling in a par2ing lot #%

3eet 3rom t)e road !as sa3el o33 t)e road!a. In contrast, anot)er co"rt decided t)at a

car par2ed in a par2ing lot, b"t bloc2ing tra33ic, !as not sa3el o33 t)e road!a. T)edi33erence bet!een #% 3eet and $ 3eet is an area o3 disp"te, b"t o"r 4e)icle !as not

bloc2ing tra33ic. Btili<ing t)ese past co"rt decisions in o"r 3a4or is one strateg !e !o"ld

emplo. T)e disting"is)ing 3act t)at di33erentiates o"r case !it) t)e ones abo4e is t)e

position o3 o"r car. +o"r da"g)ters accident res"lted in t)e car 3acing t)e !rong

direction on t)e 3ree!a s)o"lder. T)"s, 5"estions presented to t)e "r !ill re4ol4e

aro"nd t)e positioning o3 o"r car and i3 it posed a danger. For e6ample, i3 t)e



)eadlig)ts !ere on, co"ld t)e )a4e ca"sed an accident b distracting or blinding ot)er

dri4ersE Wo"ld it be dangero"s i3 o" res"med e6iting t)e o33ramp beginning o"r

acceleration in t)e !rong directionE "estions s"c) as t)ese, i3 pro4ed in t)e

a33irmati4e, !ill damage o"r de3ense. O"r obecti4e is to pro4e t)at o"r car !as o33 t)e

road!a, not bloc2ing tra33ic, and not posing a danger to ot)ers.

W)at !o"ld be bene3icial in pro4ing t)at o"r 4e)icle !as sa3el o33 t)e road!a is

sec"ring testimon b t)e arresting o33icer stating o"r 4e)icle did not pose a danger to

t)e p"blic. Wit) t)is testimon, no "r co"ld 3ind t)at !e did not pro4e t)e de3ense.

Wit)o"t t)e o33icer;s testimon, t)e "r ma concl"de t)e 4e)icle !as not sa3el o33 t)e

road!a. Facts t)e !ill "se to s"pport t)is concl"sion are: o"r 4e)icle !as 3i4e 3eet

3rom t)e 3ree!a, o"r 4e)icle !as 3acing t)e !rong direction, and t)e mane"4ers

needed to merge onto t)e 3ree!a posed a ris2 to ot)er dri4ers. *onse5"entl, t)es"ccess o3 t)is de3ense is not an absol"te. T)e state )as a strong case against o".

T)e s"ccess o3 o"r case relies on pers"ading t)e "r t)at o" !ere sa3el o33 t)e

road!a. Cro4ing t)at de3ense !o"ld e6onerate o", b"t t)e li2eli)ood o3 s"ccess is not

in o"r 3a4or. We cannot rel on t)e possibilit o3 t)e o33icer;s testimon= nor can !e rel

on t)e "r;s smpat) concerning o"r da"g)ters sa3et= !)at !e can rel on is m

complete s"pport 3or o"r 3amil and o"r interests. I !ill !or2 !it) and 3or o" in

creating a strong case in o"r 3a4or i3 o" so c)oose.

Clease do not )esitate to call me !it) an 5"estions o" ma )a4e. Also, i3 t)ere are an

misstatements o3 3act in t)is letter it is important t)at o" contact me !)en possible.

Again, it !as a pleas"re meeting o" and I loo2 3or!ard to o"r call.

Most incerel,

Jason MacLeod



Sample memorandum of lawThis memorandum is provided for instructional purposes. It is not to be relied on as

legal advice.

TO: Lawyer

FROM: Law Student

DATE: December 13, 1995

FILE NO: 20056-3

RE: Security documents eecuted and re!istered usin! debtor"s common law name

#$%&S

$n indi'idual (t)e *Debtor+ eecuted security documents on )is own be)alf usin! a name w)ic) was

not )is le!al name .e si!ned usin! t)e name Da'id /lac, w)ic) )e was usin! !enerally as )is

name at t)e time )e eecuted t)e documents .owe'er, )is le!al name is Da'id /rown, and )e )as

more recently be!un usin! t)at name instead of Da'id /lac

ur client (t)e */an+ is t)e security )older &)e security documents were re!istered a!ainst t)e

Debtor"s personal property in /ritis) %olumbia in fa'our of t)e /an, wit) t)e re!istration listin! t)e

Debtor as Da'id /lac

&)e /an is now concerned about w)et)er its security is enforceable

SS4

ill personal property security documents !ranted in fa'our of t)e /an, si!ned and re!istered in

/ritis) %olumbia usin! t)e Debtor"s common law name Da'id /lac, be enforceable a!ainst t)e



Debtor and t)e Debtor"s creditors now t)at t)e Debtor )as c)an!ed to usin! )is le!al name Da'id

/rown

%7%LS7

&)e law is clear t)at t)e security documents will be enforceable by t)e /an as a!ainst t)e Debtor

.owe'er, t)ere is a si!nificant ris t)at t)e security documents, w)ic) )a'e been re!istered under

t)e name Da'id /lac in public re!istries, will not be enforceable a!ainst ot)er creditors of t)e

Debtor f t)e Debtor )ad continued to consistently use Da'id /lac as )is common law name, t)e

re!istration would protect t)e /an"s security &)e switc) from /lac to /rown brin!s t)e protection

afforded by re!istration into 8uestion

&)e /an s)ould tae t)e followin! steps to protect its security &)e entire transaction does not need

to be re-eecuted, because t)e contracts si!ned by t)e Debtor are 'alid as a!ainst t)e Debtor.owe'er, t)e security re!istration s)ould be updated by a new filin! reflectin! t)e different name

ne way would be to file notice of a c)an!e of name i'en t)e uncertainty as to w)en t)e Debtor

!oes by /lac, and w)en )e !oes by /rown, t)e better route is to file under bot) names

DS%SS7eneral principles concernin! names

$t common law, a person could adopt any name in t)e community, pro'ided t)at t)is was not done

wit) any intention to defraud ot)ers $ person"s le!al name was t)e name t)e person was nown by,determined merely as a 8uestion of common usa!e wit)in t)e community $lt)ou!) occasionally

pri'ate $cts were used to formally establis) c)an!es of name, t)e most common pattern was for t)e

name c)an!e to be effected by adoption, use and reco!nition in t)e community CED (West. 3rd),

:ol 3;, *:ital Statistics+, at para ;<

Le!islation now !o'erns le!al name c)an!es .owe'er, t)e courts )a'e )eld t)at t)e use of a name

different from one"s le!al name is still not ille!al, so lon! as t)ere is no intention to defraud or

mislead CED (West. 3rd), :ol 3;, *:ital Statistics+, at para 50

&)e =ri'y %ouncil considered t)e effect of si!nin! a deed usin! a name different from one"s le!al

name inFung Ping Shan ' Tong Shun, >191?@ $% ;03 (=%, on appeal from t)e Supreme %ourt of

.on! Aon! $t pa!e ;0< t)eir Lords)ips statedB

A person who signs, seals, and delivers a deed of covenant cannot avoid liability under

the deed by signing a name which he represents as, but which is not in fact, his own,



nor can he saddle such liability on the person whose name he uses, unless he is the

duly constituted attorney of such person.

&)eir Lords)ips )eld t)at alt)ou!) t)e defendant )ad si!ned )is uncle"s name to t)e con'eyance

document w)en )e )ad no aut)ority to do so, t)e 'endor t)ou!)t it was dealin! wit) t)e defendantrat)er t)an )is uncle, and t)e defendant was t)erefore liable under t)e deed of con'eyance &)is

case is cited as aut)ority in bot) Halsbury’s Laws of England (;t) ed, :ol 12, *Deeds and ot)er

nstruments+, at para 1365, note 1, and CED (West. rd!, :ol 11$, *Deeds and Documents+, at

para 25

n summary, at common law one was entitled to use a name by w)ic) one was commonly nown in

t)e community f one used a different name to si!n a le!al document, one would still be bound

under t)at document

$pplyin! t)is rule to our facts, t)e Debtor is bound to t)e /an under t)e security documents, e'en

t)ou!) )e did not si!n t)em usin! )is le!al name

Ce!istration re!imes

Difficulties wit) t)e common law rule )a'e arisen in modern times because of re!istration re!imes

t)at are name-dependent &)ere are se'eral recent cases debatin! t)is issue in t)e contet of ==S$

re!istrations ost of t)ese cases deal wit) minor differences between t)e le!al name and t)e

re!istered name, suc) as an incorrect or missin! middle initial, or a misspelled first name )a'e not

dealt wit) t)ese cases $ small body of cases discusses t)e problems t)at arise wit) a si!nificantlydifferent !i'en name $n e'en smaller body of cases deals wit) differences in surnames

&)e tendency in t)e more recent cases )as been to afford a !enerous interpretation of t)e word

*name+ in t)e re!istration re8uirements, w)ere t)e le!islation does not specify t)at t)e name used in

t)e documentation must be t)e indi'idual"s le!al name .owe'er, t)is is balanced a!ainst t)e

problems caused to t)ird parties tryin! to searc) t)e re!istry under t)e le!al name and findin! no

security documentation re!istered under t)at name

"ritish Colu#bia

&)e leadin! /ritis) %olumbia case is $e La%ar&hu' (199;, < ==S$% (2d 155 (/%S%, per

aster =owers &)e debtor )ad !ranted a c)attel mort!a!e on a motor 'e)icle to t)e ban in t)e

name of *LaEarc)u+ &)e debtor subse8uently filed an assi!nment into banruptcy under t)e name

of *LaEarc)u+ &)e debtor"s birt) certificate read *LaEarcEu+ and as a result t)e assi!nment was

c)an!ed to read *LaEarcEu+ .owe'er, all ot)er identification of t)e debtor, includin! )is dri'er"s



licence and 'e)icle owners)ip, contained t)e spellin! *LaEarc)u+ &)e debtor also stated in an

affida'it t)at )e always new )imself to be *LaEarc)u+ and )eld )imself to be suc) to t)e public .e

was not aware t)at )is birt) certificate contained a different spellin! of )is surname

&)e ban )ad re!istered its security interest under t)e name of *LaEarc)u+ and under t)e correctserial number of t)e 'e)icle &)e trustee in banruptcy disallowed t)e ban"s claim as a secured

creditor on t)e !rounds t)at a name searc) would not re'eal t)e ban"s interest and )ence t)e error

was seriously misleadin! &)e trustee ar!ued t)at section 9(1 of t)e Personal Propert !ecurit

"ct , S/% 19?9, c 36 (*==S$+ re8uired t)at t)e debtor"s le!al, true or ri!)t name, as indicated on

some official document, s)ould be recorded on t)e financin! statement, and t)at strict compliance is

necessary to preser'e t)e inte!rity of t)e re!istration system under t)e $ct .ence, t)e trustee

ar!ued t)at t)e ban"s security interest was unperfected at t)e time of banruptcy and was in'alid as

a!ainst t)e trustee

&)e ban ar!ued t)at additions s)ould not be read into t)e ==S$ and its re!ulations #urt)ermore,

t)e ban ar!ued t)at name c)an!es can occur wit)out re!istration under t)e a#e )&t and under

common law, and t)ere is not)in! to in'alidate t)ese c)an!es &)e ban t)erefore ar!ued t)at its

re!istration and security interest s)ould be 'alid as a!ainst t)e trustee

aster =owers noted t)at t)is was a case of first impression in /ritis) %olumbia .e made t)e

followin! !eneral comments about name c)an!es at pa!es 162 and 163B

A person may have more than one name, or may be known by more than one name, or

may change their name without going through a formal process which results in arecord of that change. The person’s birth certicate may contain the name under which

their birth was registered, or be issued in a dierent name if that change has been

ocially recorded with ital !tatistics. A person may use a surname of their spouse, the

name they obtained by adoption, or at birth or their surname immediately before

marriage, if they are a married person. The #ame "ct , s ".#, does not appear to place

any restriction on when a person begins using a particular surname or any restriction

that prevents them from using one particular surname and then another and reverting

to the original or, in fact, to what may be a third surname. The #ame "ct does not

appear to re$uire any formal registration of such an election or use.

%n addition, there does not appear to be anything which invalidates a change of name

by common&law even though that change might be an oence under the #ame "ct .

aster =owers t)en re'iewed t)e ==S$ and its re!ulations, and concluded t)at t)e references to

*name+ in t)at le!islation were not restricted to t)e *le!al name+ of t)e debtorB



% conclude that the regulations should not be interpreted to deprive the bank of its

security in a case of this nature. The regulations do not say which name the security

must be registered in and % would also nd from the evidence that the bankrupt’s name

is 'a(archuk, not 'a(arc(uk as shown on his birth certicate. The name 'a(archuk is the

name which he has ac$uired at common&law. % am not making any determination as towhether or not his name may not also be 'a(arc(uk as registered by his birth. This may

simply be a case where he had, in fact, two names and the regulations of the ))!A do

not specify which name is to be used. Therefore, % conclude the bank has properly

registered its security as re$uired by the ))!A and that its security is valid as against

the trustee.

&)is case comes out stron!ly in fa'our of t)e ban and t)erefore supports t)e position our client

wants to tae wit) respect to t)e /rown financin! .owe'er, t)ere are se'eral problems wit) relyin!

on t)is case t was decided only at t)e le'el of a aster t is t)e only /ritis) %olumbia case on t)is

issue &)e two surnames in our case are completely different, rat)er t)an )a'in! a sli!)tly different

spellin! #urt)ermore, t)e Debtor )as now started usin! /rown, )is le!al name, as )is surname

&)is confuses t)e issue and would enable a court to distin!uis) our case from t)at of r LaEarc)u

)lberta

&)e $lberta %ourt of $ppeal too a similar approac) in *iller+ *&Clelland Ltd. ' "arrhead Sa,ings -

Credit nion Ltd., >1995@ 5 C 1<0 ($lta %$ &)e banrupt in t)at case )ad t)ree !i'en

names, but was commonly nown and referred to by only t)e second of t)e names .is dri'er"s

licence, income ta returns, personal resume and professional certificates, presented w)en )e

applied for a loan wit) t)e credit union, all identified )im by t)e second name &)e credit union

re!istered financin! statements under t)e ==S$ ($lta s)owin! only t)e second !i'en name

/anruptcy proceedin!s were later commenced usin! t)e banrupt"s first !i'en name, under w)ic)

no ==S$ re!istrations were s)own &)e re!istrar in banruptcy disallowed t)e credit union"s claim,

and t)e disallowance was up)eld by t)e banruptcy Fud!e &)ese rulin!s were o'erturned on

appeal

&)e $lberta %ourt of $ppeal )eld t)at neit)er t)e Personal Propert !ecurit "ct , S$ 19??, c =-

;05 nor t)e re!ulations under it prescribed une8ui'ocal identification criteria &)ey merely pro'idet)at t)e debtor is to be identified by )is or )er last name, followed by )is or )er first name and middle

name, if any &)e term *first name+ is not defined in t)e $lberta ==S$ or re!ulations and s)ould not

be presumed to refer to a precise term suc) as *!i'en name+ &)e $lberta %ourt of $ppeal )eld t)at

e'en t)ou!) re!istry !uidelines publis)ed by t)e $ttorney eneral directed t)at t)e birt) certificate

name be used in re!isterin! securities, t)ose !uidelines did not )a'e bindin! le!al effect



$ccordin!ly, t)e re!istration usin! only t)e second !i'en name and t)e surname was )eld to be in

compliance wit) ==S$ re8uirements

&)e ey in bot) t)e $lberta and /ritis) %olumbia cases is t)at t)e name used by t)e debtor on t)e

security documents was t)e debtor"s common law name, in t)e sense t)at t)e debtor consistentlyused t)at name and was nown by t)at name in t)e community $ different result may arise w)ere

t)e debtor does not consistently use t)e same name, as in our case

/ntario

n $e 0risenthwaite (19?<, ;3 C=C 30; (nt Sup %t t)e borrower used different last names

.er maiden name was G% Smit) S)e adopted )er first )usband"s name, ullins, on marria!e $fter

)is deat) and )er remarria!e to risent)waite, s)e used 'arious last names, includin! *ullins+,

*ullins risent)waite+, and *risent)waite+ $ security document and financin! statement in fa'our

of t)e c)attel mort!a!ee wit) respect to a motor )ome described t)e debtor as *G% ullins+ &)e

trustee in banruptcy of t)e debtor sou!)t directions as to w)et)er t)is security was 'alid

aster /rowne noted t)at t)e ntario le!islation did not define w)at is t)e proper surname for use in

a ==S$ financin! statement .e noted t)at t)e Change of a#e )&t , CS 19?0, c 62 placed

some restrictions on common-law ri!)ts wit) respect to name c)an!es, but did not necessarily

c)an!e t)ose ri!)ts n particular, )e )eld t)at at common law t)e debtor was entitled to use t)e

'arious names s)e was usin! .owe'er, )e )eld t)at )er true name and surname for purposes of

compliance wit) t)e re!ulations under t)e Personal Propert !ecurit "ct , CS 19?0, c 3<5

was *risent)waite+, as s)e )ad adopted by usa!e )er new )usband"s name &)at adoption )ad t)e

effect of an election Suc) an adoption was acnowled!ed to cause a c)an!e of name under

t)e Change of a#e )&t

&)is case implies t)at t)e only name t)at is 'alid for ==S$ re!istration is t)e name t)at is t)e le!al

name under t)e Change of a#e )&t n t)is respect, it is narrower t)an t)e later case law

summariEed abo'e .owe'er, t)is case was decided se'eral years prior to t)ose cases &)e recent

$lberta and /ritis) %olumbia case law taes a more liberal approac)

Summary

)en considered to!et)er and analyEed, t)e combined effect of t)is case law appears to be as

follows )ere t)e debtor uses more t)an one name, t)en t)e name to be used for ==S$

re!istration must be t)e debtor"s le!al name n t)e ot)er )and, if t)e debtor consistently uses t)e

same name and )as t)erefore adopted it at common law, re!istration in t)at name will be 'alid for

==S$ purposes &)us, in t)is case, if Da'id /lac was continuin! to use t)at name, e'en t)ou!) )is



birt) certificate name is Da'id /rown, t)en re!istration under Da'id /lac s)ould be 'alid because it

would be )is common law name .owe'er, if )e is usin! bot) names, or )as abandoned /lac in

fa'our of /rown, t)en t)e documentation s)ould be re!istered in )is le!al name

Cecommendation $s a result of t)is analysis, t)e /an s)ould tae t)e followin! steps to protect its security &)e entire

transaction does not need to be re-eecuted, because t)e contracts si!ned by t)e Debtor will be

'alid as a!ainst )im .owe'er, t)e security re!istration s)ould be updated by a new filin! reflectin!

t)e different name ne way would be to file notice of a c)an!e of name i'en t)e uncertainty as to

w)en t)e Debtor !oes by /lac, and w)en )e !oes by /rown, t)e better route is to file under bot)

names