In Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion
357183
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 24, 2022Background
- On June 24, 2019 claimant drove her 2006 Saturn Ion to a Detroit address on Lumley Street to pick up Malcolm Smith; she parked outside a house under police narcotics surveillance.
- Sergeant Chivas Rivers observed an unknown man reach into the passenger window in what appeared to be a hand‑to‑hand drug transaction; claimant then drove away and was stopped minutes later.
- Rivers found five empty syringes under the passenger seat; no controlled substances were recovered. Rivers reported that Smith said he had gone to buy $10 of heroin and that claimant confirmed she transported him there; claimant denied those statements.
- The vehicle was seized and a forfeiture complaint under MCL 333.7521 et seq. was filed on October 23, 2019.
- Claimant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and (C)(10); the trial court granted summary disposition (order did not specify the subrule) and ordered immediate release of the car.
- The prosecutor appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed the grant under (C)(10) and remanded for the trial court to consider the other grounds (notably the (C)(7) timeliness argument).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Claimant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) | Evidence (surveillance of known drug house, observed hand‑to‑hand exchange, post‑stop admissions) creates a genuine factual dispute that the vehicle was used to facilitate a drug sale under MCL 333.7521(1)(d) | Evidence was insufficient because no drugs were found and the vehicle only transported a person who intended to buy drugs, not drugs themselves | Court: Trial court erred; viewed favorably to plaintiff a reasonable factfinder could infer the vehicle transported drugs or otherwise facilitated the sale, so (C)(10) dismissal was improper; reversed and remanded |
| Whether MCL 333.7521(1)(d) requires actual transportation of drugs (versus transporting a buyer) | Subsection (1)(d) covers vehicles used to transport or facilitate transportation for sale/receipt of controlled substances; facts permit inference vehicle carried drugs after purchase | Claimant: statute requires actual transport of controlled substances, which was not shown here | Court: On this record a factfinder could infer post‑purchase transport; (1)(d) may support forfeiture on these facts |
| Whether the trial court also granted dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or (C)(8) and whether plaintiff abandoned those issues on appeal | Plaintiff focused appeal on erroneous (C)(10) grant and preserved challenge to that basis | Claimant argued trial court granted on (C)(7) and (C)(8); plaintiff failed to brief those, so claimant contended abandonment | Court: Record shows trial court decided on (C)(10) grounds only; plaintiff was not required to brief (C)(7)/(C)(8) to obtain relief; remand for trial court to consider claimant's (C)(7) and (C)(8) contentions |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffner v Lactoe, 492 Mich 450 (de novo review of summary disposition rulings)
- McLain v Lansing Fire Dep’t, 309 Mich App 335 (standards for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(7) motions)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (MCR 2.116(C)(8) standard; accept well‑pleaded allegations)
- Sanders v Perfecting Church, 303 Mich App 1 (evidence considered under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- West v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177 (summary disposition—no genuine issue of material fact)
- Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Herald Co, Inc v Eastern Mich Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich 463 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- People v One 1979 Honda Auto, Vin No 284S2150186, 139 Mich App 651 (vehicle forfeiture under drug statutes)
- In re Forfeiture of One 1985 Mercedes Benz, 174 Mich App 203 (forfeiture analysis under § 7521)
- In re Forfeiture of One 1987 Chevrolet Blazer, 183 Mich App 182 (discussion of § 7521 subsections and transportation of customer versus drug)