IN RE FORFEITURE OF APPROXIMATELY $19,050.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY. CAROL ZARKA, APPELLANT,
v.
LAWSON L. LAMAR, SHERIFF OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
In a civil forfeiture proceeding under Florida law, the appellate court reversed summary judgment against Carol Zarka regarding approximately $19,050 in seized currency, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding her ownership and knowledge of the money's intended use.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Zarka's affidavits created genuine issues of material fact as to her ownership of the currency and whether she knew or should have known after reasonable inquiry that the money would be employed in criminal activity. These factual disputes must be resolved at trial rather than through summary judgment.
[1] Summary judgment is improper in a forfeiture proceeding when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding ownership and the claimant's knowledge of criminal activity.
[2] Possession of currency does not solely determine ownership in a forfeiture proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“However, mere possession of currency is not legally determinative of ownership.”
Establishes that the trial court's reliance on Irving's possession as proof of title was legally insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Orange County Sheriff seized $19,050 from Robert Irving's car trunk and initiated forfeiture proceedings, alleging the money was contraband intend…
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 Contraband Article Definition cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Chief Judge.
We hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in this forfeiture proceeding brought under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act (sections 932.-701-932.704) because there existed genuine issues of material fact.
The Orange County Sheriff commenced a forfeiture proceeding, alleging that the money seized from the trunk of Robert Irving’s car was a contraband article employed or intended to be employed in violation of Chapter 893 relating to controlled substances, i.e. cocaine. Carol Zarka, Robert Irving’s fiancee, claimed ownership of the money. Zarka submitted an affidavit in opposition to the state’s motion for summary judgment alleging that she had entrusted the money to Irving for the purpose of buying automobiles for resale, and was unaware the money was going to be used for any other purpose. Irving also filed an affidavit alleging that Zarka had given him the money for the purchase of automobiles and denied that he intended to use the money in any other manner. The trial court granted summary judgment of forfeiture finding:
1. That claimant, Carol Zarka, is the sole claimant of approximately $19,-050.00 in U.S. currency.
2. That the $19,050.00 in U.S. currency was seized from one Robert Irving.
3. That possession of currency vests title thereto in the holder. However, mere possession of currency is not legally determinative of ownership.
Based on this record, Zarka was at least a disputed owner of the currency. Her affidavit also created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she knew or should have known after reasonable inquiry that the money would be employed or it would likely be employed in criminal activity. While the trial court may not have believed her story, or disbelieved that she was the owner of the currency, these were issues to be decided at trial, see Williams v. Miller, 433 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), and not by summary judgment. See, In re Forfeiture of 1979 Ford Truck # VIN F14HNEC1331, 389 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (record contained nothing indicating that defendant knew methaqualone was in his truck, which was readily accessible to others; truck was not subject to forfeiture); In re Forfeiture of Blue 1979 2-Door Toyota Tag # DFJ-442, VIN # TE31377910, 441 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (forfeiture properly denied where substantial competent evidence supported the trial court’s finding owner was unaware her son had taken her car and had possession of it at the time he committed a burglary); Weisz v. Miami Shores Village, 461 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984), petition for review denied, 472 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1985) (record devoid of any testimony tending to show owner should have known driver and passenger, her friend and boyfriend, ever used, possessed or dealt in cocaine); Wheeler v. State, 472 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (evidence did not establish owner either knew or should have known, after reasonable inquiry, her car was being employed or was likely to be employed to transport drugs where owner loaned her car to a long-time friend, who asked to borrow it to run household errands while her own car was under repair).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Munoz v. The City OF Coral Gables, 695 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…the actual or titled owner(s) of the seized property or on those parties who had a perfected security interest to the property. See § 932.704(6)(a) and (c), Fla. Stat. (1995)3; see also In re Forfeiture of Approximately $19,050.00 In U.S. Currency, 519 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Wheeler v. State, 472 So. 2d 847, 848-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (evidence did not establish owner either knew or should have known, after reasonable inquiry, her car was being employed or was likely to be employed to transpor…
-
Woodson v. City OF Tallahassee, 553 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…p of money or how it must be established; the holding of the case is simply that the evidence was sufficient to require the state to go forward with proof to justify the forfeiture. Cf., In re Forfeiture of Approximately $19,050.00 In U.S. Currency, 519 So. 2d 1134, 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (affidavits of claimant and her fiancee that cash found in fiancee’s car trunk was money entrusted by claimant to fiancee for purpose of buying automobiles for resale established that claimant was at least a disputed owner…
-
Herrera v. City OF N. Miami Beach, 767 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Based on the authority of In re Forfeiture of Approximately $19,050.00 in U.S. Currency, 519 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Miller, 433 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Gailyn W. Wheeler v. State, 472 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Weisz v. Miami Shores Vill., 461 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- In re the Forfeiture OF Blue 1979 2-Door Toyota, 441 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- In re Forfeiture OF 1979 Ford Truck, 389 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)