Joseph Skernivitz v. State of Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security
M2016-00586-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- On May 22, 2014, police executed a search warrant at Joseph Skernivitz’s home, seizing marijuana, $22,860 in cash, and a car; Skernivitz was served with notice of seizure and forfeiture the same day.
- Officers requested extensions to file a sworn affidavit for a forfeiture warrant; the court granted extensions and a forfeiture warrant was issued on June 10, 2014.
- The Department of Safety and Homeland Security (DOS) sent the forfeiture warrant and related notices on June 18, 2014; DOS issued final orders of forfeiture for the car and currency on August 7, 2014.
- Skernivitz filed administrative petitions (petitions for hearing and for stay) after the deadlines; he also filed a petition for stay in chancery court on September 29, 2014 that sought agency action, not judicial review.
- Skernivitz filed an “Amended Petition for Judicial Review” in chancery court on March 23, 2015. The chancery court denied DOS’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and nonetheless affirmed the forfeiture, reasoning the forfeiture warrant was timely issued.
- The Court of Appeals held Skernivitz failed to file a petition for judicial review within the 60-day period required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(b), so the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; the chancery judgment was vacated and the petition dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancery court had subject-matter jurisdiction to review DOS’s August 7, 2014 final forfeiture orders | Skernivitz contended his earlier filings (petition for stay filed in chancery within 60 days) should be treated as a timely petition for judicial review (substance over form) | DOS argued the statutory 60-day filing deadline for judicial review under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(b) is jurisdictional and Skernivitz’s amended petition (filed March 23, 2015) was untimely | Court held Skernivitz did not file a petition for judicial review within 60 days; the chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and the petition must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000) (standard of review on questions of law about subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Bishop v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 896 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (statutory deadlines for administrative appeals are jurisdictional)
- Brundage v. Cumberland Cnty., 357 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. 2011) (court may look to substance over form in pleadings, but not to circumvent jurisdictional filing requirements)