How do you guys style your asset forfeiture cases? Before I came to my DA's office, my (limited) understanding was that forfeiture cases are in rem proceeding against the property. So they would be styled, for ex: State of Texas vs. 1980 Ford Pinto. As if the vehicle were the defendant. This is consistent with virtually all the case law and tdcaa sample forms I have seen.

Our office, however, styles our forfeiture cases with the owners, possessors, interest holders as the defendants. e.g. State of Texas vs. Jane Doe. Is this improper?

59.04(i) states that all owners/possesors(except for registered title and interest holders of motor vehicles found in C) must be named a party to the suit in accordance with the TRCP. I think that's why we style it the way we do, but, if that's not the correct way to style the case, will there be any adverse consequences? I think one minor annoyance is that it sometimes (I feel) confuses ad litems as to what their role is.

It is an in rem proceeding. It would be more confusing to name a person as the defendant.

We style the case as State of Texas vs. 1980 Ford Pinto(when we are lucky enough seize such a fine vehicle). In the body of the petition we further describe the property and refer to it as "defendant property." Known interest holders, owners, possessors are "complained of" and identified in the petition as "respondent(s)."

[This message was edited by John Greenwood on 05-19-09 at .]

We only handle art. 18.18 forfeitures, but we style them as John suggests. I have seen, and find no legal problem with, styling such as "In re One 1980 Ford Pinto, VIN 1JFRT389SUX9002, 37 Cents ($0.37) in United States Currency and Two Chia Pets".

I agree with Martin, John and Scott. The criminal defendant is not really a "party." The defendant is a person with an interest in the litigation. This can get to be really academic, but there are times when you may need to argue that the criminal defendant is not entitled to all of the rights that a "party" would be entitled to. For example, there is authority to suggest that the owner of property in an in rem proceeding is not entitled to the protections of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act in the event of a default judgment. (See In re Baltimore & O. R. Co. 63 F. Supp. 542 (1945).) I am not sure that including a defendant in the style of the case would actually change the person's status, but leaving them out of the style certainly makes your arguments more defined and consistent. An alternative that I have considered is styling the cases In re 1980 Ford Pinto.

Also...we don't put the VIN in the style, as Scott does. We do include it in the body of the pleading. Since Scott does it, I have probably been committing horrible malpractice.

BTW...I just set my new "low" benchmark for a forfeiture case, filing on "$5 in US Currency and One 1999 Chevrolet Pickup." Our police officer actually seized more money than that, but it then turned out that all but $5 was counterfeit. I reasoned that if we did not file on the $5 bill, we would have to give it back to the defendant...who would probably abandon it. Abandoned money, especially in tiny amounts, creates headaches for our LE agencies. So I filed on the $5 bill, along with the truck. If nothing else, it will give me something to talk about at the bar at the next TDCAA gathering.

At least with only $5 at stake, you won't have to pay court costs.

Thanks for the responses. In the future we will style the cases the way it has been suggested.