TRAVIS L WOLFORD V SHIAWASSEE CO PROSECUTOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TRAVIS L. WOLFORD,
UNPUBLISHED
January 12, 2006
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 263844
Shiawassee Circuit Court
LC No. 05-002321-CF
SHIAWASSEE COUNTY PROSECUTOR,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Fitzgerald and White, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition for defendant
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(4) (lack of subject matter jurisdiction) in this action arising out of the
forfeiture of defendant’s vehicle under the relevant controlled substances provisions of the Public
Health Code, MCL. 333.7521 et seq. We affirm.
We review the trial court’s summary disposition ruling de novo. Sun Communities v
Leroy Twp, 241 Mich App 665, 668; 617 NW2d 42 (2000). The issue of subject matter
jurisdiction is a question of law also subject to review de novo. W A Foote Memorial Hosp v
Dep’t of Public Health, 210 Mich App 516, 522; 534 NW2d 206 (1995). MCL 600.605 provides
that the circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and
remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some
other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of
this state.
As the forfeiture statute sets forth, property that has been legally seized may be
administratively forfeited by a government agency. In re Return of Forfeited Goods, 452 Mich
659, 665, 550 NW2d 782 (1996). Before the forfeiture can take place, the government must give
notice to the owner of the property that it has been seized and that the government seeks its
forfeiture. MCL 333.7523(1)(a). Within twenty days after receiving notice, if the owner wishes
to contest the forfeiture, a claim and bond must be filed. MCL 333.7523(1)(c). If no claim is
filed within the twenty-day period, in rem forfeiture proceedings are not instituted. Instead, the
automatic forfeiture provision is triggered. MCL 333.7523(1)(d). If a claim is filed, the
prosecuting attorney must commence forfeiture proceedings at the expiration of the twenty-day
period. In re Return of Forfeited Goods, supra at 667. This is the only means by which the
statute confers jurisdiction on the circuit court. Id. (emphasis in original.) Because plaintiff was
duly notified of the intended forfeiture but failed to file a claim contesting forfeiture and post a
-1-
bond in accordance with the statute, the trial court correctly concluded that it did not have
jurisdiction to review the matter. In re Return of Forfeited Goods, supra at 667-668; Hollins v
Detroit Police Dep’t, 225 Mich App 341, 347; 571 NW2d 729 (1997).1
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Helene N. White
1
We note that plaintiff has not been deprived of a forum for raising challenges to the
constitutionality of the seizure or the statute. Such challenges can be raised in the in rem
forfeiture proceedings contemplated by MCL 333.7523. See, e.g., In re Forfeiture of United
States Currency, 164 Mich App 171; 416 NW2d 700 (1987). The statutory procedure affords an
adequate remedy to ensure due process. Derrick v City of Detroit, 168 Mich App 560, 563; 425
NW2d 154 (1988). Plaintiff simply failed to pursue the statutory procedure for challenging the
forfeiture after being duly advised of his right to do so.
-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.