(a) Whenever, in any proceeding in court for a forfeiture, under G.S. 90-112 of any conveyance seized for a violation of this Article the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to continue, remit or mitigate the forfeiture.
(b) In any such proceeding the court shall not allow the claim of any claimant for remission or mitigation unless and until he proves (i) that he has an interest in such conveyance, as owner or otherwise, which he acquired in good faith; (ii) that he had no knowledge, or reason to believe, that it was being or would be used in the violation of laws of this State relating to controlled substances; (iii) that his interest is in an amount in excess or equal to the fair market value of such conveyance.
(c) If the court, in its discretion, allows the remission or mitigation the conveyance shall be returned to the claimant; and should there be joint request of any two or more claimants, whose claims are allowed, the court shall order the return of the conveyance to such of the joint requesting claimants as have the prior claim on lien. Such return shall be made only upon payment of all expenses incident to the seizure and forfeiture incurred by the State. In all other cases the court shall order disposition of such conveyance as provided in G.S. 90-112, and after satisfaction of the expenses of the sale, and such claims as may be approved by the court, the funds shall be paid to the treasurer or proper officer authorized to receive fines and forfeitures to be used for the school fund of the county in which said vehicle was seized.
(d) If the court should determine that the conveyance should be held for purposes of evidence, then it may order the vehicle to be held until the case is heard. (1975, c. 601.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1980–1993 · leading case:
State v. Morris, 405 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Morris, 405 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 30× “These and other charges against defendant arose from incidents which occurred 2 May 1989. When defendant was arrested on that day, law enforcement officers also seized the black 1985 Ford Mustang automobile he was driving.”
State v. Honaker, 431 S.E.2d 869 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 11× “2d 351 (1991), this Court explicitly held that there is no right to a jury trial in actions under N.C.G.S. § 90-112.1. Appellant urges us to find that she was entitled to a trial by jury, notwithstanding our opinion in Morris .”
State v. Meyers, 263 S.E.2d 835 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “G.S. § 90-112.1 (b) (1979 Cum. Supp.). If the claimant carries this burden, he is entitled to the return of his vehicle.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-112.1(a): 1 case
State v. Morris, 405 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“These and other charges against defendant arose from incidents which occurred 2 May 1989. When defendant was arrested on that day, law enforcement officers also seized the black 1985 Ford Mustang automobile he was driving.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-112.1(b): 2 cases
State v. Morris, 405 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“These and other charges against defendant arose from incidents which occurred 2 May 1989. When defendant was arrested on that day, law enforcement officers also seized the black 1985 Ford Mustang automobile he was driving.”
State v. Honaker, 431 S.E.2d 869 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
“2d 351 (1991), this Court explicitly held that there is no right to a jury trial in actions under N.C.G.S. § 90-112.1. Appellant urges us to find that she was entitled to a trial by jury, notwithstanding our opinion in Morris .”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-112.1(c): 2 cases
State v. Morris, 405 S.E.2d 351 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).
“These and other charges against defendant arose from incidents which occurred 2 May 1989. When defendant was arrested on that day, law enforcement officers also seized the black 1985 Ford Mustang automobile he was driving.”
State v. Meyers, 263 S.E.2d 835 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
“G.S. § 90-112.1 (b) (1979 Cum. Supp.). If the claimant carries this burden, he is entitled to the return of his vehicle.”
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.