A. If no claims are timely filed, the attorney for the state shall apply to the court for an order of forfeiture and allocation of forfeited property pursuant to section 13-4315. On the state's written application showing jurisdiction, notice and facts sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for forfeiture, the court shall order the property forfeited to the state.
B. After the court's disposition of all claims timely filed under this chapter, the state has clear title to the forfeited property and the court shall so order. Title to the forfeited property and its proceeds is deemed to have vested in the state on the commission of the act or omission giving rise to the forfeiture under this title.
C. On order of the court forfeiting the subject property, the attorney for the state may transfer good and sufficient title to any subsequent purchaser or transferee, and the title shall be recognized by all courts, by this state and by all departments and agencies of this state and any political subdivision. The attorney for the state may not transfer title to either:
1. An officer or employee of the agency that seized the property or a person who is related to the officer or employee by blood or marriage.
2. The attorney for the state or any individual working in the same office or any person related to the authority or individual by blood or marriage.
D. On entry of judgment for a claimant or claimants in any proceeding to forfeit property under this chapter such property or interest in property shall be returned or conveyed immediately to the claimant or claimants designated by the court. The person or seizing agency that made the seizure and the attorney for the state are not personally liable to suit or judgment on account of such seizure, suit or prosecution unless the person, seizing agency or attorney for the state intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent.
E. The court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses and damages for loss of the use of the property to any claimant who substantially prevails by an adjudication on the merits of a claim. If the court finds that reasonable cause did not exist for the seizure for forfeiture or the filing of the notice of pending forfeiture, complaint, information or indictment and that the seizing agency or attorney for the state intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent, the court shall award the claimant treble costs or damages. The court must apportion the award for treble costs or damages between the agency that made the seizure and the office of the attorney for the state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases, 1990–2018 · leading case:
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 20× “§ 13-4311(G) allowed the state to proceed with forfeiture according to A.R.S. § 13-4314 (2001). The forfeiture judgment was granted because appellant failed to file an answer to the state’s complaint.”
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “We affirm the portion of the judgment ordering the seized funds returned but vacate the portion of the judgment awarding Gilbert ten percent prejudgment interest because A.R.S. § 13-4314(E) prohibits prejudgment interest at the legal rate in in rem forfeiture actions.”
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 9× “§ 13-4311(G) does not supply a ten-day grace period. ¶ 19 Appellants contend that, although they failed to file within the twenty-day period after March 3, 2009, their answer is timely because a ten-day grace period is provided under A.”
In Re a Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 1632 N. Santa Rita, 801 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-4314(F) states: The court shall order any claimant who fails to establish that his entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under § 13-4304 to pay the costs of any claimant who establishes that his entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under § 13-4304.”
In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency, 171 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “When, as here, no claimant comes forward, the State “shall apply to the court for an order of forfeiture and allocation of forfeited property,” which shall be granted upon showing of “jurisdiction, notice and facts sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for forfeiture.”
Norriega v. MacHado, 878 P.2d 1386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 13-4314(A). As Mrs. Nor-riega notes, there is no provision in the statutes for anyone to intervene in the proceeding once the state has applied to the court for an order of forfeiture.”
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz, 381 P.3d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 13-4314(F), a “claimant who fails to establish his entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under [A.”
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch, 860 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “”) section 13-4314(F) (1989)? FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY John Alexander Stewart Haywood (“Ap-pellee”) was arrested for attempted possession of cocaine.”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“section 13-4314(A), the State may apply for an order of forfeiture if no timely claims have been filed.”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 388 P.3d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Under the text of § 13-4314(E), which allows compensation for an “interest” in property, the court was not necessarily restricted to ordering the return of the actual currency seized.”
Rende v. State, 812 P.2d 1047 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The state could then apply directly to the court for an order of forfeiture and allocation of forfeited property pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-4314 and 13-4315. The state mailed a copy of its application to appellant’s counsel.”
In Re $70,070 in U.S. Currency, 335 P.3d 545 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “¶ 1 Fernando Peña challenges a trial court ruling striking his answer to a forfeiture complaint and ordering the state to proceed with an uneontested forfeiture pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-4314 and 13-4315. He contends the court erred when, at a hearing held prior to entry of this…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4314(A) — 8 cases
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 13-4311(G) allowed the state to proceed with forfeiture according to A.R.S. § 13-4314 (2001). The forfeiture judgment was granted because appellant failed to file an answer to the state’s complaint.”
In Re Twenty-Four ThouSand Dollars ($24,000) in United States Currency, 171 P.3d 1240 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“When, as here, no claimant comes forward, the State “shall apply to the court for an order of forfeiture and allocation of forfeited property,” which shall be granted upon showing of “jurisdiction, notice and facts sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for forfeiture.”
Norriega v. MacHado, 878 P.2d 1386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“A.R.S. § 13-4314(A). As Mrs. Nor-riega notes, there is no provision in the statutes for anyone to intervene in the proceeding once the state has applied to the court for an order of forfeiture.”
State ex rel. Horne v. Anthony, 303 P.3d 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“§ 13-4311(G) does not supply a ten-day grace period. ¶ 19 Appellants contend that, although they failed to file within the twenty-day period after March 3, 2009, their answer is timely because a ten-day grace period is provided under A.”
State v. Counterman, 992 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“section 13-4314(A), the State may apply for an order of forfeiture if no timely claims have been filed.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4314(B) — 1 case
State v. Jackson, 113 P.3d 112 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“§ 13-4311(G) allowed the state to proceed with forfeiture according to A.R.S. § 13-4314 (2001). The forfeiture judgment was granted because appellant failed to file an answer to the state’s complaint.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4314(E) — 4 cases
In re United States Currency In Amount of $26,980.00, 18 P.3d 85 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“We affirm the portion of the judgment ordering the seized funds returned but vacate the portion of the judgment awarding Gilbert ten percent prejudgment interest because A.R.S. § 13-4314(E) prohibits prejudgment interest at the legal rate in in rem forfeiture actions.”
In Re $15,379 in U.S. Currency, 388 P.3d 856 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Under the text of § 13-4314(E), which allows compensation for an “interest” in property, the court was not necessarily restricted to ordering the return of the actual currency seized.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4314(F) — 8 cases
In Re a Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 1632 N. Santa Rita, 801 P.2d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“A.R.S. § 13-4314(F) states: The court shall order any claimant who fails to establish that his entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under § 13-4304 to pay the costs of any claimant who establishes that his entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under § 13-4304.”
State Ex Rel. Brnovich v. Cisneros-Ruiz, 381 P.3d 244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Under A.R.S. § 13-4314(F), a “claimant who fails to establish his entire interest is exempt from forfeiture under [A.”
Matter of One (1) Rolex Brand Man's Watch, 860 P.2d 1347 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 13-4314(F) (1989)? FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY John Alexander Stewart Haywood (“Ap-pellee”) was arrested for attempted possession of cocaine.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.