In re Forfeiture of a Quantity of Marijuana
291 Mich. App. 243
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- This is a forfeiture action against real property and personal property seized in connection with a marijuana operation; plaintiff seeks forfeiture under MCL 333.7521(l)(c) and (l)(f).
- Property at issue includes 3551 East Allan Road (real property) and other seized personal property; Steven Ostipow allegedly operated the marijuana-growing setup.
- Gerald Ostipow held title to the real property and Royetta Ostipow held an equitable interest; Steven resided at the East Allan Road and 3996 Allan Road properties.
- Plaintiff alleged knowledge by claimants of Steven’s activities through statements to authorities and a search warrant record; claimants filed a handwritten list in pro per as a response.
- Claimants later answered with affirmative defenses including innocent owner defense under MCL 333.7521(l)(f) and lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
- The trial court granted summary disposition, denied reconsideration, and the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the innocent owner defense properly supported by the claimants' affidavits and pleadings? | Ostipows failed to admit or deny, and affidavits were insufficient to raise a genuine issue. | Claimants' answer, affidavits, and affirmative defenses raise material questions of fact about innocence. | Yes; the innocent owner defense raised material facts requiring trial; reversal and remand. |
| Did the trial court correctly apply the burden of proof for the innocent owner defense under MCL 333.7521(l)(f)? | Plaintiff argued the defense is negated by knowledge or consent and relied on inadmissible hearsay. | Claimants bore burden to prove lack of knowledge or consent; affidavits supported defense. | The defense must be proven by the owner; the court erred in granting summary disposition. |
| Were the affidavits and pleadings admissible evidence supporting summary disposition analysis? | Plaintiff relied on hearsay documents; court should consider admissible evidence. | Affidavits and pleadings are admissible evidence for summary disposition analysis under MCR 2.116(G)(5). | Affidavits and pleadings could create a factual question; error to rely solely on inadmissible records. |
| Did procedural issues (handwritten letter as answer) affect waiver or summary disposition outcome? | Handwritten letter was not a proper answer and could waive defenses. | Letter was not an answer; defenses were not waived. | Procedural waivers were not dispositive; the motion should be reconsidered on remand. |
| Did venue and jurisdiction impact the proper forum for the forfeiture action? | Venue in Saginaw County improper for real property forfeiture. | Circuit court has statewide jurisdiction; venue considerations noted but not fatal. | Remand for proper venue considerations; underlying merits unaffected here. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Forfeiture of $53, 178 Mich App 480 (1989) (innocent owner defense burden on owner; evidence required to support defense)
- Calero-Toledo v Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663 (1974) (constitutional limits to innocent ownership defense)
- Bennis v Michigan, 447 Mich 719; 527 NW2d 483 (1994) (coowner innocent ownership and due process discussions)
- One Blue 1977 AMC Jeep CJ-5 v United States, 783 F2d 759 (8th Cir. 1986) (discussion of innocence as a constitutional exception to forfeiture)
- In re Forfeiture of $234,200, 217 Mich App 320; 551 NW2d 444 (1996) (burden shifting when innocent owner defense is raised)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109; 597 NW2d 817 (1999) (evidentiary standards for summary disposition and admissible evidence)