ONE 1978 GREEN DATSUN PICKUP TRUCK, VIN HL620262180, TAG NO. WPN-271, AND JAMES BRYAN KRUYSMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. MANATEE COUNTY FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A vehicle owner whose automobile was released in a forfeiture proceeding appeals the trial court's refusal to award storage fees as costs. The court reverses, holding that a prevailing vehicle owner in a civil forfeiture proceeding is entitled to recover storage fees as part of costs in that same proceeding, rather than requiring a separate legal action.
A prevailing vehicle owner in a forfeiture proceeding has the right to claim storage fees as costs in the forfeiture action itself. The government must properly seize and store the automobile or pay the storage costs incurred, and the owner need not pursue a separate remedy for recovery of these fees.
[1] A prevailing owner in a forfeiture proceeding is entitled to recover storage fees incurred for the seized property.
[2] Forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature and governed by the rules of civil procedure.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a vehicle owner who successfully defends a forfeiture proceeding has a right to claim storage fees and that the 'government must properly seize and store the automobile or [upon improper seizure] pay the ... storage costs ... incurred'”
Establishes the core holding that prevailing owners are entitled to storage fees as costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn automobile (1978 Green Datsun pickup truck) was subject to forfeiture proceedings under Florida Statutes section 932.704. The trial court released …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prevailing Party Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
This proceeding for the forfeiture of an automobile, pursuant to section 932.704, Florida Statutes (1981), resulted in a final judgment releasing the automobile to its owner. The owner appeals from the trial court’s refusal to award him the amount of storage fees as costs. We reverse.
We have not been provided with an argument by appellee in this matter which involves the often murky subject of governmental forfeiture proceedings.
However, appellant has called to our attention a Fourth District Court of Appeal case which did not award storage fees as costs to a prevailing vehicle owner under somewhat similar circumstances. City of Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida, for the use and benefit of the Pompano Beach Police Department, 352 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The court in that case labeled forfeiture proceedings as “quasi-criminal” in nature and found that section 939.06, Florida Statutes (1975), authority for an award of costs to an acquitted or discharged criminal defendant, did not justify an award of storage fees as costs to the prevailing vehicle owner although the court’s opinion recognized the owner’s right to recovery of those fees upon seeking “a proper remedy.” Id. at 139.
However, subsequent to City of Pompano Beach, the Fourth District characterized forfeiture proceedings as “essentially civil in nature and, therefore ... governed by the rules of civil procedure.” In re Forfeiture of Approximately $48,900 in U.S. Currency and Other Personal Property, 432 So. 2d 1382, 1385-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
See In re Forfeiture of One Hyd-roste Boat, 442 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (suggesting that one claiming an interest in seized property should file a responsive pleading in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140); In re Forfeiture of United States Currency in the Amount of $5,300, 429 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (the rule to show cause should require parties claiming an interest in seized property to file a responsive pleading which should include any affirmative defenses, as provided by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(c) and (e)).
We agree with the Fourth District in City of Pompano Beach that a vehicle owner who successfully defends a forfeiture proceeding has a right to claim storage fees and that the “government must properly seize and store the automobile or [upon improper seizure] pay the ... storage costs ... incurred_” 352 So. 2d at 139. We do not agree, however, that the prevailing owner must seek another remedy for the recovery of storage fees. Considering fairness to the vehicle owner and judicial economy, there should be no necessity for another legal proceeding for that purpose.
Our conclusion is consistent with the foregoing characterization of forfeiture proceedings as civil in nature and with section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1981), providing for the award of legal costs and charges to the prevailing party. Section 932.704(3) refers to storage fees in forfeiture proceedings in the context of costs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF LAW Enf't v. Real Prop., 588 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1991)…circuit court.’ ” In re Forfeiture of United States Currency in the Amount of Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($5,300.00), 429 So. 2d 800, 801-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also One 1978 Green Dat-sun Pickup Truck v. State ex rel. Manatee County, 457 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (describing forfeiture proceedings as “murky”); In re Forfeiture of 1975 Mercedes Benz 450 SL, 455 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (dismissal of complaint was premature “no doubt due to the absence of a clearly establish…
-
In re Forfeiture OF the following described Prop.: 1978 Green Datsun Pickup Truck v. Kruysman, 475 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…s being held pending the forfeiture proceedings. On appeal this court reversed and held that Kruysman was entitled to have his vehicle returned to him free of any storage costs. See One 1978 Green Datsun Pickup Truck v. State ex rel. Manatee County, 457 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). After remand, the trial court ordered the release of the truck to Kruysman “free of all costs incurred by the petitioner for maintenance, security or storage.” In the meantime, however, the Manatee County Sheriffs Department had…
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Bules, 479 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ing recovery for the damage inflicted prior to the City’s appeal. Cf. In re Forfeiture of 1978 Green Datsun Pickup Truck, 475 So. 2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (after remand from One 1978 Green Datsun Pickup Truck v. State ex rel. Manatee County, 457 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), see supra note 2, trial court granted judgment for owner of seized vehicle who had filed supplemental counterclaim seeking to recover for the loss of his vehicle as a result of county’s permitting the vehicle to be sold in order…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Forfeiture of Approximately Forty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($48, 432 So. 2d 1382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- In re the Forfeiture of United States Currency IN the Amount OF Five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($5, 429 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Davis v. State, 352 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- State of Fla. ex rel. City OF Pompano Beach v. Washington, 352 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- In re Forfeiture OF ONE 1978 Hydroste Boat, 442 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)