STATE OF MICH V TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 15, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 202146
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 96-649076 CF
$10,306 U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendant,
and
ELAINE ABERNATHY,
Claimant-Appellant,
and
GARY ABERNATHY,
Defendant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Gribbs and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Claimant appeals as of right from a bench trial which resulted in the forfeiture of $10,306. We
affirm.
Gary Abernathy was arrested on February 11, 1996, for a non-drug related offense, and was
found to be carrying $10,306. The money was set up for a dog search and there was a strong positive
indication by the dog of narcotics on the money. It was determined by a computer search that Gary had
been recently arrested for a violation of the controlled substances act. Gary was informed that the
money was being seized as suspected narcotic proceeds and he responded, “[s]o what if it’s dope
money, I’m holding it for someone else, you can have it.” Gary filed an affidavit of indigence and a
-1
notice of claim for the return of all the money seized from his person by the Detroit Police Department
on February 11, 1996. Gary, however, failed to pursue the case, and the trial court entered a judgment
of default against him. Approximately one month later, claimant commenced proceedings challenging
the forfeiture.
Claimant argues that the trial court erred in finding that she did not have standing to challenge the
forfeiture. We disagree. This Court reviews de novo issues of standing to determine if the claimant has
a sufficient property interest in the money to challenge the forfeiture. See In re Forfeiture of $11,800,
174 Mich App 727; 436 NW2d 449 (1989). In order for a claimant to have standing to challenge a
forfeiture, the claimant must have a recognizable interest in the property. MCL 333.7523(1)(c); MSA
14.15(7523)(1)(c); In re Forfeiture of $53, 178 Mich App 480, 494; 444 NW2d 182 (1989).
United States currency is normally considered to be a bearer instrument. In re Forfeiture of $19,250,
209 Mich App 20, 27; 530 NW2d 759 (1995). Possession of such property is prima facie evidence of
ownership, and the burden of producing evidence regarding ownership rests upon the person disputing
such ownership. Id.
Claimant’s only evidence that she possessed an interest in the seized money was her testimony
that she had saved the money over many years and then loaned it to her son, Gary, so that he could hire
an attorney. The trial court found this testimony to be incredible and unbelievable. Although our review
of the trial court’s decision is de novo, we nonetheless recognize that trial court occupies a superior
position for assessing the credibility of witnesses. See People v Cheatham, 453 Mich 1, 30; 551
NW2d 355 (1996). Considering the apparent lack of credible evidence, we agree with the trial court
that claimant failed to overcome the presumption that the money belonged to its possessor, Gary.
Without evidence to show that she has an interest in the seized money, claimant does not have standing
to challenge the forfeiture. MCL 333.7523(1)(c); MSA 14.15(7523)(1)(c); In re Forfeiture of $53,
supra at 494.
Having found that claimant does not have standing to challenge the forfeiture, we need not
address her remaining issue.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
