An interesting attempt to combat a vehicle forfeiture. In this case, the vehicle was to be forfeit due to a First Degree DUI conviction. But, the defense claimed that due to the value of the vehicle, there was a real-property homestead-exemption. An interesting argument that the conciliation court agreed with, but the district court rejected.
I will agree that the Torgelson v. Real Property argument at least made it an interesting fight. But I'm not surprised that they lost.
A12-0217 Matthew Roy Nielsen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. 2003 Honda Accord, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. George F. McGunnigle.
The motor-vehicle exemption provision, Minnesota Statutes section 550.37, subdivision 12a (2010), does not preclude or limit a prosecuting authority from executing a forfeiture action to seize a repeat drunk driver's motor vehicle used to commit a designated offense under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.63, subdivision 1(e) (2010), or require the state to pay him the value of the forfeited vehicle.
Affirmed. Judge Kevin G. Ross.
By: Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533
Sun, May 12, 2019 @ 5:14 PM
Tue, May 14, 2019 @ 2:32 AM
Sun, June 16, 2019 @ 12:57 PM
Sun, September 1, 2019 @ 4:13 PM
Sat, October 12, 2019 @ 8:39 AM
Mon, December 9, 2019 @ 2:29 AM
Tue, December 31, 2019 @ 1:22 PM
Tue, December 31, 2019 @ 10:31 PM
Mon, January 6, 2020 @ 11:35 PM
Tue, January 14, 2020 @ 5:37 AM
Sat, January 18, 2020 @ 8:41 AM
Your Email/URL (Optional):
Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.
©2020 Ascheman Law | 612-217-0077. Website Design by Lift Creative.