Paul J. Pastor, Jr., Et Ano., Resp/x-app V. Real Prop 713 Sw 353rd Pl.., Mei Xia Huang, App/x-resp
82262-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2022Background
- PCS executed a search warrant at 713 SW 353rd Place, Federal Way, on May 20, 2019 and discovered a sophisticated illegal marijuana grow; Huang was on the property and had $20,400 and an ID listing that address.
- PCS posted seizure documents, mailed a Notice of Seizure/Intended Forfeiture, filed a lis pendens and obtained an in rem warrant; substitute service by publication was later authorized when personal service attempts failed.
- Huang (through counsel) appeared, asserted ownership, engaged in discovery (with delays/objections), and later proposed then withdrew a negotiated settlement she had authorized her attorney to make.
- PCS moved for summary judgment and for enforcement of the settlement; the trial court found a binding settlement existed but declined to enforce it on Eighth Amendment waiver grounds, then granted summary judgment and entered a final forfeiture order.
- Huang appealed raising jurisdictional, due process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment excessive-fines claims; PCS cross-appealed the trial court’s denial of settlement enforcement but the appellate court affirmed the forfeiture and did not reach the cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice/service under RCW 69.50.505 and jurisdiction | Huang: PCS failed to personally serve her within 15 days, so court lacked jurisdiction | PCS: statute allows substitute service and service by mail; PCS complied with publication rules and other notice methods | Court: Service complied with RCW 69.50.505(3); publication and other service were proper; jurisdiction existed |
| Due process and personal/in rem jurisdiction | Huang: inadequate notice deprived her of due process and precluded in rem jurisdiction | PCS: Huang appeared, litigated, asserted defenses, and waived service objections by engaging in the case; notice methods satisfied due process | Court: Due process satisfied; Huang’s service objections were waived by appearance and conduct |
| Equal protection challenge to RCW 69.50.505 | Huang: statute is irrational re: marijuana (argues classification unjustified) | PCS: statute regulates illegal manufacture/possession of marijuana and is rationally related to legitimate state interests (public health/regulation) | Court: Rational-basis standard applies; Huang failed to defeat statute; upheld as rationally related to legitimate state interests |
| Eighth Amendment excessive fines challenge | Huang: forfeiture of the property is an excessive fine relative to the offense | PCS: civil forfeiture is subject to excessive-fines analysis; Huang failed to apply controlling test or carry burden | Held: Court declined review on inadequate briefing; trial court had found Huang failed to meet burden; forfeiture affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- ZDI Gaming Inc. v. State ex rel. Wash. State Gambling Comm’n, 173 Wn.2d 608 (definition and scope of jurisdiction)
- Dougherty v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 150 Wn.2d 310 (jurisdictional principles)
- City of Seattle v. Long, 198 Wn.2d 136 (civil asset forfeiture is punitive for excessive-fines analysis)
- Tellevik v. Real Prop. Known as 31641 W. Rutherford St., 125 Wn.2d 364 (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Seeley v. State, 132 Wn.2d 776 (rational-basis review and presumption of constitutionality)
- Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682 (U.S. Supreme Court guidance on excessive fines)
- City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 164 Wn. App. 236 (seizure of the res as prerequisite for in rem jurisdiction)