Bottini v. Dept. of Finance, Montgomery Co.
147 A.3d 371
| Md. | 2016Background
- April 2012: Police arrested Gianpaolo Bottini for drug offenses and seized cash, records, and banking documents; Gianpaolo then withdrew funds from his Bank of America accounts and they were deposited into his sister Daniela’s Capital One account.
- Law enforcement traced $63,891.93 to Daniela’s Capital One account; county obtained a search/seizure warrant and seized that account on April 19, 2012 and gave notice of intent to forfeit.
- Gianpaolo was convicted May 10, 2013 for a drug offense; the County filed a Complaint for Currency Forfeiture as to the Capital One account on August 1, 2013 (within 90 days after conviction).
- Daniela argued the account is intangible personal property (a contractual right), not “money,” so the County’s complaint—filed more than 90 days after seizure—was untimely under the deadline for non-money property.
- Trial and intermediate appellate courts held the funds in the bank account are “money” under Maryland’s forfeiture statute and that the County’s August 1, 2013 filing was timely; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
- The Court of Appeals (majority) affirmed: funds in a bank account constitute “money” under CP § 12-101(m)(1)(iv), so the CP § 12-304(c)(1) 90-day post-disposition deadline for money governed and the County’s filing was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether funds in a bank account are “money” under the forfeiture statute | Petitioners: bank accounts are intangible contractual rights (depositor has right to demand funds); thus not “money” and different filing deadline applies | County: ordinary meaning of “money” includes funds convertible to cash; bank accounts hold money and therefore are “money” for forfeiture purposes | Held: funds in a bank account are “money” under CP § 12-101(m)(1)(iv) |
| Whether bank-account funds are instead tangible/intangible personal property categories (e.g., interests, claims, rights, securities) | Petitioners: bank account is intangible personal property (interest/claim/right); deadlines for non-money property apply | County: statute separates “money” from other property categories; bank accounts are not listed as a separate category and are best understood as holding money | Held: not tangible/intangible personal property for statute’s purposes; classified as "money" |
| Which deadline for filing forfeiture complaint applies | Petitioners: use general deadlines for property (earlier of 90 days after seizure or 1 year after final disposition) making County’s filing untimely | County: CP § 12-304(c)(1) requires proceedings about money to be filed within 90 days after final disposition of CDS prosecutions; County met that deadline | Held: CP § 12-304(c)(1)’s 90-day post-disposition rule for money applies; County’s August 1, 2013 filing (within 90 days of May 10, 2013 conviction) was timely |
| Whether statutory text or history supports a narrow meaning of "money" limited to physical currency | Petitioners: other statutory provisions (photographing coin/currency; proximity presumption) show “money” meant physical cash | County: plain meaning and legislative history show "money" is broad (coins, currency, and funds convertible to cash); recodification dropped redundant references to coin/currency | Held: textual analysis and legislative history support broad definition of "money" that includes bank-account funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Dir. of Fin. of Prince George’s Cnty. v. Cole, 296 Md. 607 (discusses civil in rem nature and rationale of forfeiture)
- Prince George’s Cnty. v. Blue Bird Cab Co., 263 Md. 655 (recognizes forfeiture statute’s harshness and legislative prerogative)
- Prince George’s Cnty. v. Vieira, 340 Md. 651 (forfeiture statutes construed strictly; procedural protections emphasized)
- Wagner v. State, 445 Md. 404 (statutory construction: give words their natural and ordinary meaning)
- Breeding v. Koste, 443 Md. 15 (appellate standard of review for bench trials)
- Omayaka v. Omayaka, 417 Md. 643 (uses “money in the bank account” language in civil context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Ross, 428 Md. 50 (refers to funds placed into personal bank account in ethics context)