STATE v 1978 LTD II

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-439 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1985 STATE O F MONTANA, Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t , 1978 LTD I1 and R I C K Y HENDRICKSON, D e f e n d a n t and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f H i l l , The H o n o r a b l e Chan E t t i e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD: F For Appellant: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Ronald W. S m i t h , County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana Edward C o r r i g a n a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , Havre F o r Respondent : James Conway a r g u e d , Montana L e g a l S e r v i c e s , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: - JI \:',! < : i92j5 Clerk A p r i l 1 5 , 1985 J u n e 2 5 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , dismissing f o r f e i t u r e proceedings a g a i n s t a n a u t o m o b i l e on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t p r o p e r n o t i c e o f s e i z u r e and i n t e n t i o n t o i n s t i t u t e f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s was n o t s e n t t o t h e owner w i t h i n f o r t y - f i v e a s r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 44-12-201, days o f t h e seizure MCA. R i c k y H e n d r i c k s o n w a s a r r e s t e d on J a n u a r y 2 5 , 1984, f o r h a v i n g LSD a n d m a r i j u a n a i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n w h i l e d r i v i n g h i s F o r d LTD t o G r e a t F a l l s . MCA, the c a r was Sheriff's notice seized Department. of the Attorney's A s a u t h o r i z e d b y s e c t i o n 44-12-103, and impounded Pursuant seizure intention of the to section car, the to by along institute County H i l l 44-12-201, with forfeiture the MCA, County proceedings a g a i n s t i t , was s e n t t o Hendrickson w i t h i n f o r t y - f i v e d a y s o f the seizure. one: it The n o t i c e w a s s u f f i c i e n t i n a l l r e s p e c t s b u t did not answer w i t h i n inform twenty days o f f a c e d e f a u l t judgment. 27, Hendrickson that he must file an the mailing of the notice o r An a n s w e r w a s n o t f i l e d a n d on March 1984, d e f a u l t judgment was e n t e r e d . On A p r i l 5 , 1 9 8 4 , H e n d r i c k s o n ' s a t t o r n e y f i l e d a m o t i o n for relief notice Montana f r o m t h e d e f a u l t j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e did not comply w i t h requirements o f due p r o c e s s or The H i l l C o u n t y A t t o r n e y Rules o f C i v i l Procedure. a g r e e d t h a t t h e n o t i c e was d e f i c i e n t a n d d i d n o t c o n t e s t t h e motion for relief. intention to Instead, institute he f i l e d a n amended n o t i c e o f forfeiture proceedings, t h o u g h more t h a n f o r t y - f i v e d a y s h a d p a s s e d s i n c e t h e c a r was s e i z e d . On May He 21, argued 1984, that Hendrickson the amended filed notice a motion cannot to relate dismiss. back to the filing of notice the original requirement complied w i t h . notice, of so that section the forty-five 44-12-201, day was not MCA, J u d g e Chan E t t i e n a g r e e d w i t h t h i s a r g u m e n t and d i s m i s s e d t h e c a s e on J u l y 1 3 , 1984. I t i s conceded by b o t h p a r t i e s t o t h i s a p p e a l t h a t t h e notice of seizure and intention to institute forfeiture p r o c e e d i n g s w h i c h was i s s u e d by t h e H i l l County S h e r i f f and served on Hendrickson process. was defective and violative of due The p a r t i e s a l s o c o n c e d e t h a t t h i s d e f e c t i v e n o t i c e deprived t h e D i s t r i c t Court of j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r d e f a u l t judgment. Therefore, the the defective notice, section 44-12-201, MCA, could had passed i s whether resolved accordance though agree. We with more than forty-five days sole issue be be filed timely to in amended since the a u t o m o b i l e s o u g h t t o b e f o r f e i t e d was s e i z e d . Appellant forfeiture argues proceedings governed by Specifically the that, under Montana appellant as a section Rules cites civil to action, 44-12-201 of Rule Civil should the be Procedure. 4 ( D ) ( 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P., which r e a d s : At any time, in its "Amendment. discretion, and upon s u c h n o t i c e and t e r m s a s it deems j u s t , t h e c o u r t may a l l o w any p r o c e s s o r proof o f s e r v i c e t h e r e o f t o b e amended u n l e s s it c l e a r l y a p p e a r s t h a t m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e would r e s u l t t o the substantial rights of the p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e p r o c e s s i s s u e d . " This rule, a p p e l l a n t contends, c i v i l procedure favored today: on their defects. Meyers v. merits, and not be expresses t h e philosophy of t h a t c a s e s should be decided dismissed due to procedural I n support of t h i s contention, appellant c i t e s t o Interwest Meyers t h e p l a i n t i f f Corp. (Utah 19811, 632 P.2d 879. In f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t on t h e f i n a l d a y o f a four year statute of Approximately t w o limitations period. y e a r s a f t e r summons was i s s u e d t h e d e f e n d a n t , t o f i l e an answer, that the summons a n s w e r when f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s on t h e g r o u n d s stated the having f a i l e d law t h a t defendant allowed thirty had twenty days. The days t o Utah trial c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d a l l o w e d t h e summons t o he amended d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f had run. Citing t o Procedure, supra, 4(h) of is identical which the rule Utah Supreme t h e Utah t o Rule Court limitations Rules of Civil 4 ( ~ () 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P., found that allowing an amendment d i d n o t amount t o m a t e r i a l p r e j u d i c e t o t h e r i g h t s of the party a g a i n s t whom p r o c e s s I n a d d i t i o n it issued. f o u n d t h a t t h e d e f e c t i n t h e summons w a s i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l , a n d therefore t h e passage of t i m e did not deprive t h e t r i a l court of jurisdiction Utah court entertain to held a permit that motion l i m i t a t i o n s had an the to run. amendment. trial amend court summons Further, had to the of that just the jurisdiction after it h e l d t o t h e i n i t i a l summons, r e l a t e d back Specifically statute the amendment a s amendments t o c o m p l a i n t s r e l a t e back t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e i n i t i a l complaint under Rule 15(e), 15 ( c ) , M.R.Civ. We have Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rule P.) no quarrel with d e c i s i o n r e a c h e d i n Meyers. the reasoning used or the W e do n o t b e l i e v e however, t h a t Meyers c a n b e c o n v i n c i n g l y a n a l o g i z e d t o t h e c a s ~ t hand. a T h i s a c t i o n f o r f o r f e i t u r e i s b a s e d on a p r o c e d u r e a u t h o r i z e d by Chapter 44-12-201 12 o f Title 44 of the Montana Code. reads a s follows: "Notice of s e i z u r e and intention t o A institute f o r f e i t u r e proceedings. peace o f f i c e r o r an o f f i c e r of the s e i z i n g a g e n c y who s e i z e s a n y p r o p e r t y o t h e r t h a n c o n t r o l l e d substances under Section the provisions of t h i s chapter s h a l l , w i t h i n 45 d a y s o f t h e s e i z u r e s , f i l e a n o t i c e of t h e s e i z u r e and i n t e n t i o n t o i n s t i t u t e f o r f e i t u r e proceedings with t h e c l e r k of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e county i n which t h e s e i z u r e o c c u r s , and t h e c l e r k s h a l l s e r v e n o t i c e t h e r e o f on a l l owners o r c l a i m a n t s o f t h e p r o p e r t y by " one o f the f o l l o w i n g methods (Emphasis added. ) ... The l a n g u a g e o f t h i s s t a t u t e i s m a n d a t o r y . Notice o f s e i z u r e and i n t e n t t o i n s t i t u t e f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s must b e s e r v e d on t h e owners o f t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h i n f o r t y - f i v e Th.ere days. i s no p r o v i s i o n i n C h a p t e r 12 f o r a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h i s t i m e limit. Despite M.R.Civ.P. be this, applied, appellant as per urges the that Meyers 4 (Dl (7) , Rule case, to allow W e r e f u s e t o d o s o and amended n o t i c e a f t e r f o r t y - f i v e d a y s . a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e following reasons. First, the statute involved in this is case an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t p r o p e r t y may n o t b e s e i z e d a without Court prior has upheld extraordinary (Wisc. hearing. forfeiture situations, Though statutes Calero-Toledo 663, v. 94 S.Ct. the as Supreme involving Pearson 2080, 1 9 7 6 ) , 240 N.W.2d Yacht 40 L.Ed.2d w e concur w i t h t h e Wisconsin Court i n S t a t e v . ex parte, to. such ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 416 U.S. L e a s i n g Co. 452, factfinding Rosen 168, t h a t because such s e i z u r e s a r e t h e s t a t u t o r y safeguards should b e r i g i d l y adhered I n Rosen t h e W i s c o n s i n C o u r t d i s c u s s e d requirements in forfeiture actions under s i m i l a r t o t h e one a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e . David Rosen t h e procedural a statute very O May 2 9 , n 1974 had h i s c a r s e i z e d by t h e p o l i c e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Uniform C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s A c t o f W i s c o n s i n . June 12, forfeiture 1974, action. papers On were served September 9, that 1974, commenced Rosen On the filed a motion t o d i s m i s s on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t a h e a r i n g had n o t been set w i t h i n the s i x t y day t i m e p e r i o d The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n . provided by The Wisconsin statute. Supreme Court affirmed, s t a t i n g t h a t i n f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n s safeguards which a r e s t a t u t o r i l y p r o v i d e d s h o u l d b e s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o u r t c o n t i n u e d , t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e must be c o n s i d e r e d mandatory. Forfeiture statutes seek: " t o p r o v i d e a prompt a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e issues involved in the forfeiture proceeding, and s e e k t o m i t i g a t e t h e harsh effects of the seizure and The i n t e r e s t f o r f e i t u r e proceeding of the state and the public in c o n t r o l l i n g t h e d r u g t r a f f i c , which t h e f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n i s designed t o p r o t e c t , i s a d e q u a t e l y s e r v e d by t h e i n i t i a l seizure. The i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p o s s i b l y innocent owner should likewise be p r o t e c t e d by s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r a l mandate o f [the statute]." Rosen, 240 N.W.2d a t 172. ... W e agree. The S t a t e ' s r e l i a n c e on Meyers v . I n t e r w e s t Corp., a l o n g w i t h i t s i n s i s t e n c e t h a t R u l e 4 ( D ) ( 7 ) , M.R.Civ.P., applied to this be misses t h e e s s e n t i a l p o i n t t h a t t h e case, s e i z u r e and f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e s a t i s s u e a r e s p e c i a l i n t h a t t h e y a l l o w a n ex p a r t e t a k i n g o f p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y . No s u c h s t a t u t e s a r e a t i s s u e i n Meyers and f o r t h a t r e a s o n w e f i n d t h a t case unpersuasive. Second, i n addition t o t h e requirement t h a t n o t i c e of s e i z u r e and i n t e n t i o n t o i n s t i t u t e f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s b e g i v e n w i t h i n f o r t y - f i v e d a y s , s e c t i o n 44-12-202, MCA p r o v i d e s that. w i t h i n twenty days a f t e r t h e mailing o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f notice, the owner of the property shall file a verified answer t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s concerning t h e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y . No e x t e n s i o n o f Further, section time f o r f i l i n g t h e a n s w e r may h e g r a n t e d . 44-12-203, MCA, provides that there is a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n o f f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h a t answer i s n o t if a v e r i f i e d mailing order or publishing the property requirements of f i l e d w i t h i n twenty days a f t e r notice, forfeited these the to statutes court the upon motion "must The strict state." indicates the no-nonsense a t t i t u d e of t h e d r a f t e r s with respect t o drug t r a f f i c . j u s t a s t h e s e s t a t u t e s impose s t r i c t r e q u i r e m e n t s , But t h e y must be enforced s o a s t o a v o i d , t o t h e g r e a t e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e , prejudicing the rights of t h e p a r t y a g a i n s t whom t h e y a r e S i n c e , i n e f f e c t , a p a r t y whose p r o p e r t y i s s e i z e d directed. under t h e s e s t a t u t e s must answer w i t h i n twenty d a y s o r l o s e t h e property, t h e r e is s t r o n g reason t o i n s i s t t h a t t h e S t a t e so a s t o p r o t e c t t h e i n n o c e n t p e r s o n provide proper notice from t h e u n w i t t i n g s u r r e n d e r o f h i s p r o p e r t y . Third, even a 1 lowed. For the S t a t e c o u l d demonstrate t h a t Rule apply should 4 (D) (7) if in this contrary to case, the no amendment contention of would the be State, a l l o w i n g a n amendment t o t h i s p r o c e s s beyond t h e l i m i t a t i o n period would significantly prejudice Hendrickson's rights. The v e r y e x e r c i s e o f t h e s e i z u r e a n d f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e s b y the State is a serious p a r t y whose p r o p e r t y procedure is significant To a s s e r t , infringement on t h e is seized without a allowed weapon only because i n the battle it rights hearing. is of the Such a considered a against drug trafficking. a s t h e S t a t e d o e s , t h a t t h e r e i s no p r e j u d i c e t o H e n d r i c k s o n by a l l o w i n g amended n o t i c e n i n e t y - f i v e seizure and fifty days simply unreasonable. s t a t u t o r y requirements, past By the statutory adhering to days a f t e r requirement due process is and the State ensures the rights of the p e r s o n c h a r g e d , and p e r m i t s t h e i n n o c e n t p e r s o n t o r e g a i n t h e use of h i s property a s rapidly a s possible. notice past the limitation period under To a l l o w amended section 44-12-201, MCA, would have the potential for serious infringement of the rights of innocent persons. The decision of the District Court is affirmed. We concur:

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.