36 C.F.R. § 262.12

Impoundment of property

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Automobiles or other vehicles, trailers, boats, and camping equipment and other inanimate personal property on National Forest System lands without the authorization of a Forest officer which are not removed therefrom within the prescribed period after a warning notice as provided in this regulation may be impounded by a Forest officer. Whenever such Forest officer knows the name and address of the owner, such impoundment may be effected at any time five days after the date that written notice of the trespass is mailed by registered mail or delivered to such owner.

(b) If the local Forest Officer does not know the name and address of the owner of property in trespass, impoundment may be effected at any time 72 hours after a notice of intention to impound the property in trespass is posted in at least one place in the vicinity of the property.

(c) Personal property impounded under this regulation may be disposed of at the expiration of 90-days after the date of impoundment. The owner may redeem the personal property within the 90-day period by submitting proof of ownership and paying all expenses incurred by the United States in advertising, gathering, moving, impounding, storing, and otherwise caring for the property, and also for the value of the use of the site occupied during the period of the trespass.

(d) The owner of impounded property may redeem it by the date set for its disposition, but shall remain liable for all costs associated with its impoundment, removal, transportation, and storage. Impounded property that is not redeemed by the date set for its disposition shall become the property of the United States and may be retained by the Forest Service for official use, sold at public sale to the highest bidder, or otherwise disposed of. When impounded property is sold, the forest officer conducting the sale shall furnish the purchaser with a bill of sale or other written instrument evidencing the sale. The original owner shall remain liable for all costs associated with impoundment, removal, transportation, and storage of the property, minus any amount received from the sale of the property.

(e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the impoundment or disposal of beached logs in Alaska if deemed abandoned under State law.

[42 FR 2961, Jan. 14, 1977, as amended at 46 FR 33521, June 30, 1981. Redesignated at 48 FR 26604, June 9, 1983; 79 FR 44296, July 31, 2014]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2015 · leading case: Grand Lake Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Veneman, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (D. Colo. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Grand Lake Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Veneman, 340 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (D. Colo. 2004). · cites it 4× “As authority for this impoundment action, the Forest Service cited to 36 C.F.R. § 262.12 . Id. On or about December 1, 2000, the Forest Service physically closed access to the Shadow Mountain Recreation Area at the mouth of the channel from the GLEHA docking area, as it had…”

United States v. Rainbow Fam., 695 F. Supp. 294 (E.D. Tex. 1988). “Besides the criminal sanctions that may be imposed, the Service has the authority to seize, impound, and remove personal property from its forests, in order to protect, and ensure access to, areas within its jurisdiction.”

Allen v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 461 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 3× “Should a mobile home not be removed within the allowed time frame, the trailer becomes unauthorized personal property, and is subject to impoundment by the Forest Service per 36 CFR 262.12. d) In the case that the tenant retires or is terminated from the Los Padres National…”

United States v. Burnett, 750 F. Supp. 1029 (D. Idaho 1990). · cites it 2× “In his brief opposing plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in his oral argument, the defendant made the following arguments: (a) That the Forest Service, in its Complaint, argued that it had the right to remove or destroy the improvements on the claims pursuant to 36…”

— 36 C.F.R. § 262.12(a) — 1 case

United States v. Burnett, 750 F. Supp. 1029 (D. Idaho 1990). “In his brief opposing plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and in his oral argument, the defendant made the following arguments: (a) That the Forest Service, in its Complaint, argued that it had the right to remove or destroy the improvements on the claims pursuant to 36…”

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.