Laserfiche WebLink
<br />agency's interest relates back to the point of when the offender <br />committed the designated offense, avoiding fraudulent transfers or <br />encumbrances of the vehicle during the pendency of the action. <br />S 169A.63, subd. 3. The 2004 amendments at make it clear that should the <br />claimant (any person, having an ownership, leasehold or security interest <br />in a vehicle subject to forfeiture, who properly files a Demand for the <br />return of the vehicle) prevail in the forfeiture action, he or she must <br />nonetheless comply with the redemption requirements of Minn.Stat. <br />S 169A.42, which include the payment of the cost of the initial tow, storage <br />and impound. (s 169A.63, subd. 9 (f) (g)). The forfeiting agency is <br />responsible for all the costs of storage and impound during the period the <br />vehicle is held awaiting the outcome of the forfeiture contest. Genin v. <br />7996 Mercury Marquis, 622 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2001). <br /> <br />The" owner" of the vehicle is not limited to registered owner. <br />"Owner" for the purposes of forfeiture is defined as "a person legally <br />entitled to possession, use, and control of a motor vehicle". This becomes <br />important when the offending driver argues that someone else owns the <br />vehicle and that persons is an "innocent owner" from whom the vehicle <br />cannot be forfeited. In many of these cases, the operator was the actual <br />owner but had either not transferred title into his name after purchase or <br />who deliberately placed title in the name of someone else, presumably <br />with a better driving record. Registered ownership is now subject to <br />rebuttal by proof of actual ownership or legal entitlement as is the case <br />of other criminal forfeitures(s 169A.63, subd. 1 (h)). The 2004 amendments <br />also clarified that joint ownership is not subject to apportionment so that <br />an offender's joint interest extends to the whole of the vehicle. The <br />burden of proving the affirmative defense of "innocent ownership" falls on <br />the claimant by "clear and convincing" evidence. (s169A.63, subd. 7(c) <br />(d)). Furthermore, the claimant who protests "innocence" must be <br />without any actual or constructive knowledge that the offender would <br />put their vehicle to any illegal use. The statute now lists, some potential <br />types of "illegal use" sufficient to discredit claimed "innocence". There is <br />a rebuttable presumption that if the owner is a family or household <br />member of an offender with 3 or more prior impaired driving convictions <br />that the owner knew or should have known that any use by that level of <br />repeat offender would be contrary to law. <br /> <br />If the owner used the vehicle to commit a designated offense or <br />designated license revocation, forfeiture must be granted and is not <br />discretionary with the court. Hawes v. 7997 Jeep Wrangler, 602 N.W.2d <br />874 (Minn.App. 1999), citing Adkins v. 7979 Midas RV, 546 N.W.2d 768 <br />(Minn.App. 1996). Once a vehicle is forfeited, the forfeiting agency may <br />either put the vehicle to official use or sell it and distribute the proceeds in <br />accordance with s169A.63, subd. lO(b). <br /> <br />HOW TO QUALIFY FOR FORFEITURE <br /> <br />Minn.Stat. S 169A.63, subd. 1 (e) includes three alternatives: <br /> <br />3~ <br />