Every now and then lienholders think they are entitled to have their vehicle released by virtue of their having a lien on a confiscated vehicle. Has anyone addressed this question. I find no statutory obligation on the state to release the vehicle in that situation. Even assuming a bona fide interest holder, I believe Ch. 59.06(a)(1) properly addresses the matter by stating that forfeited property will be sold, and the proceeds of the sales shall be distributed to, among others, nonforfeitable interest holders. Also, 59 doesnt allow recovery of attorneys fees or any other costs against the State. Anyone have any ideas on this?

I agree.

I face the same problem about twice a year...usually from local lenders (never from the national lenders like GMAC, Ford Motor Credit, etc.) My argument is: (1) the property is subject to an ecvidentiary hold, as well as a pending forfeiture, so they will have to wait until the seizing agency releases the car before they can try to repo it; (2) if the vehicle is forfeited, the forfeiture relates back to the date of the seizure, so we will not pay any late fees, finance charges, etc. (that is from Ch. 59...I am on the road, so I do not have the code in front of me. I will post language I am refering to when I get back to the office); and, finally, if they play nice, and we choose not to forfeit the vehicle, I will let them know when we are ready to release the vehicle and they can try to repo it before the owner comes to get it. (If they reject my offer, then we will release it to the owner and the lender can start from square one in trying to find it.)

The reason we treat these lenders so firmly is that we have found that these are usually the same folks who sell and finance most of the high end, late model rides for the most notorius drug dealers, often issuing suspicious sales documents and assisting the buyers in avoiding paying taxes on the full value of the vehicles. We have seen things like late model Escalades being sold for $9000...with a $30,000 set of aftermarket wheels. All for cash. Please.

The language I was looking for is found at:

Art. 59.06(f) A final judgment of forfeiture under this chapter perfects the title of the state to the property as of the date that the contraband was seized or the date the forfeiture action was filed, whichever occurred first, except that if the property forfeited is real property, the title is perfected as of the date a notice of lis pendens is filed on the property.

My position is that the highlighted portion means that when the vehicle is forfeited, the title vests with the State as of the date of the seizure, meaning that title passes before the accrual of any late fees, charges, etc.

I am having the same problem with Capitol One (Formerly Hibernia Bank). We are receiving more of a fight from the bank then the Defendant. The bank actually filed an objection to the affidavits attached to a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Defendant (Not the Bank). I suspect the bank does not have standing to object to evidence submitted against the Defendant. Anyone have any case law on point?

The Defendant has since died. However, he had credit life insurance. The bank acted as if they did not even want to apply for the insurance.