Lamson v. Martin

¶1(concurring.) I concur in the result only and write separately to address my concern regarding the majority’s innovative definition of “diligent inquiry.” The majority’s conscripted definition of diligent inquiiy was arbitrarily tom from an unrelated context and forced to do service in this context. If a definition of diligent inquiry is required, it should be gleaned from the intent of the Legislature when drafting this statute, not lifted part and parcel from an opinion discussing a completely different term of art. Trial judges in future cases should not be required to give this unique definition.