Commonwealth v. All that Certain Lot or Parcel of Land Located at 605 University Drive
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 321
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Palazzari appeals a Centre County trial court order forfeiting his property under the Forfeiture Act after a motion for summary judgment.
- Commonwealth petitioned to forfeit the property at 605 University Drive, State College, where Greg’s Sunoco operates, alleging use for cocaine trafficking.
- Palazzari admitted ownership on paper but claimed his mother Santina Palazzari was the de facto owner and operator.
- Palazzari pled guilty to drug offenses; Commonwealth attached documents showing Palazzari as owner.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to forfeit, citing that summary judgment has been approved in forfeiture matters, and Palazzari appealed."
- The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Forfeiture Act requires an in-court hearing and that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to forfeiture proceedings; the matter was remanded for a hearing."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Forfeiture Act requires a live hearing before forfeiture | Palazzari argues Rules of Civil Procedure don’t apply; hearing required | Commonwealth argues complete statutory scheme preempts Rules; hearing not required | Hearing required; summary judgment improper |
| Whether summary judgment is available in forfeiture actions | Palazzari asserts factual ownership dispute; summary judgment inappropriate | Commonwealth contends no genuine issue as to material facts | Summary judgment not appropriate where a genuine ownership dispute exists |
| Who is the owner of the property is a material issue | Palazzari claims mother is owner; documents support de facto ownership | Commonwealth presents deed showing Palazzari as sole owner | Ownership is material; trial court must hold hearing to determine ownership facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 940 A.2d 610 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (forfeiture procedures and hearing rights under the Forfeiture Act)
- Commonwealth v. 6969 Forest Avenue, 713 A.2d 701 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (summary judgment not specifically held appropriate; sale stayed issue)
- One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania, 380 U.S. 693 (1965) (forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature for constitutional purposes)
- United States v. United States Coin and Currency, 401 U.S. 715 (1971) ( Fifth Amendment applicable; quasi-criminal nature of forfeiture)
- Churchill, Appeal of Borough of Churchill (1990) (trial court can regulate practice with local rules where not conflict with law)
- United Healthcare Benefits Trust v. Insurance Comm’r of Pennsylvania, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 549 (1993) (summary judgment standards applied to administrative-type proceedings)