United States v. Hinders, No. 15-2622 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseIn 2013, the IRS seized $32,820.56 from Carole Hinders’s business bank account based on allegations that Hinders had unlawfully “structured” deposits to avoid federal currency reporting requirements. The government then filed a civil forfeiture complaint against the seized currency, and Hinders filed claims to the seized property. The district court eventually dismissed the action without prejudice. The district court then denied Hinder's motion for fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. 2465(b)(1), and declined to reconsider its prior dismissal without prejudice. The court concluded, however, that Hinders has not “substantially prevailed” in this action where the district court’s dismissal without prejudice did not materially alter the legal relationship of the parties. Therefore, Hinders is not eligible for an award of attorney fees, costs, or interest under CAFRA. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice rather than with prejudice. In this case, the district court considered each of the relevant factors in deciding to grant the government’s motion and Hinders had not shown that she would be prejudiced by a dismissal without prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Smith, Circuit Judge, and Erickson, District Judge] Civil case - Asset Forfeiture.Dismissal of action without prejudice at the government's request did not materially alter the legal relationship of the parties, and Hinders is not eligible for an award of attorneys' fees, costs or interest under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act; the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice rather than with prejudice as Hinders failed to show she would be prejudiced by a dismissal without prejudice. Judge Erickson, concurring.
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.