513.615. Rights of innocent party not subject to forfeiture — innocent party, defined. — The interest of an innocent party in the property shall not be subject to forfeiture. An "innocent party" is one who did not have actual knowledge that the property was used or intended for use in the course of, derived from or realized through a criminal activity. Any innocent party shall have a right or claim to forfeited property or to the proceeds derived therefrom superior to any right or claim the state or the county has in the same property or proceeds. To enforce such a claim, the innocent party must intervene in the forfeiture proceeding prior to its final disposition; except that, with respect to any property for which the state maintains records of ownership, if the certificate of title, the official records or other evidence of ownership indicates the existence of a lien on the seized property or the ownership of the property by someone other than the defendant, the named lienholder or owner shall be a necessary party to the action commenced under this section unless the party has by affidavit released the lien. The lienholder or owner shall have no obligation to intervene to protect his rights, but the court shall determine the validity of the lien.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Residence Located at 5708 Paseo, 896 S.W.2d 532 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “” Pursuant to that section, no penalty shall be placed on a party who lacks “actual knowledge that the property was used or intended for use in the course of, derived from or realized through a criminal activi-ty_” Section 513.”
Yahne v. Pettis Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 73 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “CAFA also includes various provisions for the protections of an “innocent party” as such persons are defined in § 513.615. Those rights are to be enforced pursuant to §§ 613.”
State v. Beaird, 914 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “” Claimant filed a motion to intervene pursuant to § 513.615 in which he alleged that he was an “innocent party” and requested an order returning the property to him.”
Missouri v. 1973 Fleetwood Mobile Home, 802 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 9× “The Joneses’ appeal from the forfeiture order, claiming that the state failed to prove that Wiser was the owner of the mobile home, and that in fact the Joneses were the owners of the trailer and their interest was not subject to forfeiture as innocent parties within the…”
City of Springfield v. Gee, 149 S.W.3d 609 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“First, § 513.615 stated that “[t]he interest of an innocent party in the property shall not be subject to forfeiture.”
State ex rel. Lafayette Cnty. Comm'n v. Ravenhill, 776 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. 1989).
“610, subsections 2 and 3, govern disposition of the property “pending final judgment in the forfeiture proceeding (emphasis added),” and § 513.615 provides that innocent parties, defined as those who did not have actual knowledge that the property was connected with criminal…”
State v. Hendrix, 944 S.W.2d 311 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 513.615, RSMo 1986. The Missouri Constitution requires that the proceeds of money or property seized under CAFA be allocated to schools rather than to law enforcement agencies.”
State v. Hendrix, 985 S.W.2d 878 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “4 Section 513.615 says, “The interest of an innocent party in the property shall not be subject to forfeiture.”
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.