Have a forfeiture case where the criminal defendant was the driver of the vehicle, and is the only named defendant in the civil forfeiture case. However, have now discovered that the vehicle is registered to another person (not a relative). Can the forfeiture petition be amended to add the correct owner as a defendant even though the 15 days to file the forfeiture has passed (approx. 35 days since the seizure date)? My thinking is that the suit was timely filed, so it may be possible to "bootstrap" and add the correct owner. Please help.

I think that you're fine. My analysis would be that because it is an "in rem" proceeding, that the property is brought within the jurisdiction of the court by the filing of the petition. Plus--the failure to serve all parties up front does not lead to an automatic dismissal.
Here are a couple of notes from the annotated version of the forfeiture statute:

Real property was brought within trial court's in rem jurisdiction when state filed notice of �Intended Seizure and Intended Forfeiture,� even though state had not yet actually seized property. Bochas v. State (App. 13 Dist. 1997) 951 S.W.2d 64, rehearing overruled, writ denied

In order to vest jurisdiction in trial court, State was required to file lis pendens on defendant's real property within three days of initiating forfeiture proceeding, despite State's assertion that because purpose of lis pendens was to put third parties on notice of State's forfeiture claim regarding real property, and failure to file only put State's claims at risk, property owner could not use procedural noncompliance with statute to avoid forfeiture, where not only did court's duty to strictly construe forfeiture statutes dictate against looking behind statute to consider its public policy basis, but State's assertion failed to recognize that lis pendens protected innocent purchasers and future security interest holders, as well as State, by giving notice of claim. Silver Chevrolet Pickup Vin 1GCEC14T7YE257128 Tag No. 3TM16 v. State (App. 7 Dist. 2003) 99 S.W.3d 874, rehearing overruled, review granted, reversed 140 S.W.3d 691. Lis Pendens 13

Failure to strictly comply with statutory requirements for forfeiture deprives trial court of jurisdiction. Silver Chevrolet Pickup Vin 1GCEC14T7YE257128 Tag No. 3TM16 v. State (App. 7 Dist. 2003) 99 S.W.3d 874, rehearing overruled, review granted, reversed 140 S.W.3d 691. Forfeitures 5

Evidence did not support finding that the owner's motorcycle was subject to forfeiture, without any proof that the property was seized in the county in which notice of the seizure and intended forfeiture was filed; in their brief, the State, implicitly if not explicitly, admitted there was no evidence of seizure in county in which notice was filed, while it was uncontroverted that the motorcycle's owner resided at an address in another county, and the motorcycle was registered to the owner at that address. 1976 Harley Davidson Motorcycle, VIN #2C16410H6 v. State (App. 13 Dist. 2003) 106 S.W.3d 398. Forfeitures 3

State's failure to timely file a lis pendens notice when seeking forfeiture of property used in a criminal enterprise did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. State v. Silver Chevrolet Pickup VIN 1GCEC14T7YE257128 Tag No. 3TMX16 (Sup. 2004) 140 S.W.3d 691. Forfeitures 5

Robert -
Thanks for the help. My initial thought was that the property seized is what is important, and that the notice / service could probably be corrected. Now I have something for the court to look at. - Thanks again.