Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garde v. One 1992 Ford Explorer XLT Motor Vehicle

June 03, 2003

JOHN K. GARDE, RESPONDENT,
v.
ONE 1992 FORD EXPLORER XLT MOTOR VEHICLE, VIN NO. 1FMDU34X3NUC11624, MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. FHW 406, DEFENDANT, CITY OF RICHFIELD, APPELLANT.



Hennepin County District Court File No. FP026281

Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge, Minge, Judge, and Hudson, Judge.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

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

Reversed and remanded

Concurring specially, Minge, Judge

OPINION

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.

FACTS

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.

ISSUE*fn1

Did respondent's failure to comply strictly with Minn. Stat. ยงรก169A.63, subd. 8(d) (2000), deprive the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.