State ex rel. Brnovich v. Culver
240 Ariz. 18
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2013 police seized currency from Culver during a traffic stop. The State filed a Notice of Seizure for Forfeiture (NOSF) and a Notice of Pending Forfeiture (NOPF) in Nov. 2013 and personally served Culver on Dec. 23, 2013.
- A claim under A.R.S. § 13-4311(D) had to be filed within 30 days of notice (by Jan. 22, 2014) to obtain claimant status and standing; no extensions are allowed.
- Culver did not file a document meeting the statutory claim requirements within the 30-day period; the earliest relevant filing was dated Jan. 14 but filed/received later and other filings occurred in February–March 2014.
- The superior court entered a forfeiture judgment on Feb. 5, 2014; Culver later filed a Rule 60(c) motion (Dec. 24, 2014) to set aside the judgment, which the trial court denied for lack of a timely, sufficient statutory claim.
- On appeal, the court analyzed the Rule 60(c) motion under subsection (6) but concluded Culver lacked standing because he never became a claimant by timely filing a compliant claim; the appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Culver had standing to seek Rule 60(c) relief after failing to file a timely statutory claim | Culver contends defects in the NOSF and mail obstruction by jail staff prevented timely participation and justify relief | State argues Culver never became a claimant because he failed to timely file a claim meeting A.R.S. § 13-4311(E), so he lacked standing | Culver lacked standing; appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying Rule 60(c) relief | Culver argues equitable grounds (mail delays, invalid notice) warrant setting aside the forfeiture judgment | State contends Rule 60(c) cannot be used by nonparties and statutory claim deadline bars relief | Court reviewed for abuse of discretion but found no basis because Culver was not a party and could not invoke Rule 60(c) |
| Whether the NOSF/NOPF complied with statutory notice and seizure procedures | Culver asserts the NOSF was invalid | State shows it complied with A.R.S. statutory notice and filing requirements | Court found State complied with statutory requirements; judgment was not void |
| Whether mailbox/prison-mailing delays entitled Culver to a later filing date | Culver relied on inmate mailbox rule and alleged jail delays | State relied on filing dates and statutory deadlines; no statutory extension permitted | Court gave Culver the benefit of doubt on mailing date but still concluded he did not comply with statutory claim requirements and thus lacked standing |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323, 697 P.2d 1073 (1985) (standard of review for Rule 60 motions)
- In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency, 172 Ariz. 15, 833 P.2d 32 (App. 1991) (timely statutory claim required to obtain claimant status and standing in forfeiture)
- In re Forty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eleven Dollars & Thirty-One Cents (47,611.31) U.S. Currency, 196 Ariz. 1, 992 P.2d 1 (App. 1999) (untimely claim means no standing to contest forfeiture)
- United States v. 8136 S. Dobson Street, Chicago, Ill., 125 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 1997) (nonparty in forfeiture cannot invoke Rule 60 to obtain relief)
- State ex rel. Horne v. Rivas, 226 Ariz. 567, 250 P.3d 1196 (App. 2011) (notice requirements necessary to give court jurisdiction over seized property)