IN RE FORFEITURE OF: ONE 1978 CHEVROLET CORVETTE V.I.N. 1Z87L85401439
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the forfeiture order must be reversed because the notice provided was constitutionally inadequate.
James Hall's Corvette was seized and forfeited while he was in jail awaiting trial. Notice was sent to his home address, which was returned unclaimed,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Reasonably Calculated cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Chief Judge.
On April 29, 1982, James Hall was arrested, and his Corvette seized. While he was in jail awaiting trial, forfeiture proceedings were undertaken. Notice of these proceedings was sent to Hall’s home address, and notice was also published in a local newspaper. The notice addressed to Hall was returned unclaimed. After Hall failed to appear at the forfeiture hearing, the trial court ordered the car forfeited to Broward County. Hall’s motion to set aside this order was denied. We reverse the order of forfeiture on the basis of Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972).
In Robinson, the State of Illinois instituted forfeiture proceedings against property owned by Robinson, who was awaiting trial in a Cook County jail. The state mailed notice of the proceedings to Robinson’s home, not the jail. The United States Supreme Court held that such procedures deprived Robinson of his due process right to notice:
In the instant case, the State knew that appellant was not at the address to which the notice was mailed and, moreover, knew also that appellant could not get to that address since he was at that very time confined in the Cook County jail. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the State made any effort to provide notice which was “reasonably calculated” to apprise appellant of the pendency of the forfeiture proceedings.
Id.., 409 U.S. at 39, 93 S.Ct. at 31-32, 34 L.Ed.2d at 49 (footnote omitted).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Forfeiture OF ONE 1978 Chevrolet Corvette V.I.N. 1Z87L85401439, 491 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…it court, resulting in the entry of a final order of forfeiture in favor of the sheriff in August 1982. This court later reversed the order of forfeiture due to lack of proper notice to appellant. See In re Forfeiture of One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 447 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Upon issuance by the trial court of a second rule to show cause in June 1984, appellant filed a timely demand for jury trial, which was denied. After a trial before the court a final order of forfeiture was again entered, from…
-
In re Forfeiture OF $420.00 U.S. Currency & $390.00 U.S. Currency & $346.00 U.S. Currency & $265.00 U.S. Currency & $202.00 U.S. Currency, 595 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…he pendency of the proceedings. See Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38, 93 S.Ct. 30, 34 L.Ed.2d 47 (1972); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); In re Forfeiture of: One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 447 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). REVERSED, with instructions to grant the motion to set aside the default, to vacate the final order of forfeiture, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. DELL, GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1972)