2018 Ohio 1723
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- The State filed a civil forfeiture petition under R.C. 2981.05 seeking to seize money seized by Dayton police as contraband/proceeds/instrumentalities from five individuals, totaling $14,371; Sanders was alleged to account for $3,027.
- Sanders moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the State failed to state a claim. The trial court initially denied that motion; Sanders later renewed a motion after statutory reform.
- Sub. H.B. No. 347 (effective April 6, 2017) amended R.C. 2981.05 to impose a $15,000 threshold for civil forfeiture of “proceeds” (actions seeking proceeds must exceed $15,000).
- Sanders argued the amended statute eliminated the State’s claim because the petition sought less than $15,000 and relied on R.C. 1.58(B) to argue the amendment applied retroactively to reduce forfeiture.
- The trial court agreed and dismissed the forfeiture action against Sanders and one other respondent. The State appealed, challenging the retroactive application of the amended statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended R.C. 2981.05’s $15,000 threshold applies retroactively to bar this forfeiture | The General Assembly did not expressly make the amendment retroactive, so it applies prospectively and does not bar the State’s action | R.C. 1.58(B) and the amendment operate retroactively to reduce forfeiture requirements, so the State’s claim (under $15,000) fails | Reversed the trial court: the amendment was not shown to be expressly retroactive, so the trial court erred in applying it retroactively and dismissing the State’s action |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Neff v. Corrigan, 75 Ohio St.3d 12 (recognizes dismissal standard under Civ.R. 12(B)(6))
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (affirming de novo review of 12(B)(6) dismissal)
- Bielat v. Bielat, 87 Ohio St.3d 350 (explains Ohio constitutional prohibition on retroactive laws and two-step test for retroactivity)
- Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 100 (retroactivity analysis and requirement of legislative intent)
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (distinguishes retrospective versus unconstitutional retroactive statutes)
- Smith v. Smith, 109 Ohio St.3d 285 (defines substantive statute as impairing vested or accrued rights)