In the Matter of Property Seized for Forfeiture From Phillip Anthony Flora, Phillip Anthony Flora
16-0865
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- Deputy stopped Phillip Flora for speeding, searched his car, and seized $120,090 in cash; State filed a civil forfeiture action.
- The State later moved to dismiss the forfeiture so the seized funds could be turned over to satisfy a prior federal judgment against Flora (FTC judgment) via a federal writ of execution.
- The district court dismissed the State’s forfeiture action and ordered return of the funds to Flora in the presence of a U.S. Marshal; before return, federal marshals executed the federal writ and seized the money.
- Flora’s attorney filed an attorney-fee lien and was paid $30,000 from the seized funds by the U.S. Marshal.
- Flora then applied for attorney fees under Iowa Code § 625.29 as the “prevailing party”; the district court denied fees, finding Flora was not the prevailing party (it did not decide the special-circumstances argument).
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Flora was not a prevailing party and alternatively that awarding fees would be unjust because his attorney had already been paid from the seized funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flora) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flora is a "prevailing party" under Iowa Code § 625.29 | Dismissal of the State’s forfeiture and court order disposing of the funds in his favor make him the prevailing party | Flora did not obtain actual relief on the merits; State could voluntarily dismiss before trial and was not conceding liability | Court: Flora is not a prevailing party; State could dismiss under civil rules and Flora did not get his money returned |
| Whether the special-circumstances exception bars fee recovery | No special circumstances; statute requires fees to prevailing non-State parties | Even if prevailing, award would be unjust because attorney was already paid from seized funds | Court (alternative): Special circumstances exist — attorney already received $30,000 for same services, making statutory award unjust |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. State, 550 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1996) (forfeiture proceedings governed by § 625.29 fee rule)
- Branstad v. State ex rel. Natural Res. Comm’n, 871 N.W.2d 291 (Iowa 2015) (standards for reviewing statutory interpretation and attorney-fee issues)
- Dutcher v. Randall Foods, 546 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1996) (defining when a party "prevails" by obtaining relief that alters legal relationship)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (prevailing-party concept where relief on merits must alter legal relationship)
- DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56 (Iowa 2002) (appellate court may affirm on any ground preserved below)
- Botsko v. Davenport Civil Rights Comm’n, 774 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 2009) (attorney fees not recoverable absent statute)
- Remer v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 576 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 1998) (§ 625.29 applies to civil actions involving the State)
- In re Marriage of Roerig, 503 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 1993) (party deemed prevailing when opponent voluntarily dismisses at start of trial — distinguished by court)