STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. 2006 HYUNDAI SANTA FE

Annotate this Case


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6042-10T4

DOCKET NO. A-6095-10T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,


Plaintiff-Respondent,


v.


2006 HYUNDAI SANTA FE, LAST FOUR

OF VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO.

1646, SEIZED FROM STEVEN B.

TRAINER, TITLED TO ALMA AGBAYANI,


Defendants-Appellants.


____________________________________________________

June 25, 2012

 

Submitted June 19, 2012 - Decided


 

Before Judges Fisher and Grall.

 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part, Bergen County, Docket No. DC-009109-11.

 

Fe Alma Agbayani, appellant pro se, in A-6042-10T4.

 

Steven B. Trainer, appellant pro se, in A-6095-10T4.

 

John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Elizabeth R. Rebein, Senior Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

 

PER CURIAM


The State commenced this action for forfeiture, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1(a), of a 2006 Hyundai Santa Fe allegedly used by Steven Trainer in the commission of criminal activity. Fe Alma Agbayani is the title holder to the vehicle. The State's complaint sought a judgment extinguishing the rights Trainer and Agbayani may have to the vehicle and vesting those property rights in the State.

Default judgment was entered against both Trainer and Agbayani. They both unsuccessfully moved for relief from the default judgment and thereafter separately appealed.1

In response to these appeals, the prosecutor concedes there are significant questions regarding the sufficiency of service of process and that both Trainer and Agbayani are entitled to relief from the default judgment. We agree.

The orders under review in these appeals are reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court to provide defendants with the opportunity to file responsive pleadings and for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.

 

 

 

1The two appeals were calendared back-to-back. We now consolidate the two appeals and decide them by way of this opinion.



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.