Hennepin County District Court File No. FP026281
Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Minge, Judge, and
In a vehicle forfeiture proceeding, a claimant's failure to serve the prosecuting attorney with the demand for judicial review as required by Minn. Stat. §á169A.63, subd. 8 (2000), deprives the district court of jurisdiction.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harten, Judge
Concurring specially, Minge, Judge
Appellant city challenges the district court's order granting summary judgment to respondent in a judicial forfeiture proceeding. Because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction, we reverse and remand for dismissal.
On 20 March 2002, respondent John Garde was arrested and charged with first-degree driving while impaired (DWI). That same day, the state seized respondent's vehicle, a 1992 Ford Explorer, and served respondent with a notice of seizure and intent to forfeit vehicle. On 18 April 2002, respondent filed a demand for judicial determination of forfeiture in the district court. It is undisputed that he never served the demand for judicial review on appellant City of Richfield, the prosecuting authority with jurisdiction over the forfeiture. Respondent later pleaded guilty to second-degree DWI.
Appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of Minn. Stat. §á169A.63, subd. 8(d) (2000), when demanding judicial review. The district court denied appellant's motion and sua sponte entered judgment for respondent, concluding that respondent was not convicted of a designated offense under the vehicle forfeiture statute. This appeal follows.
Did respondent's failure to comply strictly with Minn. Stat. §á169A.63, subd. 8(d) (2000), deprive the ...