873 N.W.2d 672
N.D.2016Background
- Matuska, owner of a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee, was arrested during a controlled narcotics purchase; the State sought forfeiture of the vehicle and $618 seized at the arrest.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered judgment forfeiting the vehicle and currency on October 6, 2014; Matuska timely appealed but later moved to voluntarily dismiss his appeal and this Court dismissed the appeal on February 13, 2015.
- On July 15, 2015, the State filed proposed amended findings and judgments to add the vehicle VIN and to forfeit the vehicle’s contents; the district court entered amended findings and judgment on July 17, 2015, adding the VIN and ordering forfeiture of the vehicle contents.
- The State did not file a Rule 60(a) motion or give notice before seeking the amendments, and offered no explanation for forfeiting the vehicle contents; at oral argument the State conceded the initial judgment did not include the contents and that they should have been returned.
- Matuska demanded return of personal property and appealed the amended judgment; he also argued statutory authority did not support forfeiture of the $618.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly amended judgment under Rule 60(a) to add VIN and forfeit vehicle contents | Amendment corrects clerical omission (VIN) and so was permissible | Amendment changed substantive relief by adding forfeiture of contents without motion or notice | Court: Vacated amended order and judgment; district court abused discretion by failing to follow Rule 60(a) procedures and by making a substantive change without proper motion/notice |
| Whether res judicata bars relitigation of forfeiture of vehicle and currency after Matuska dismissed prior appeal | State implicitly: merits remain subject to challenge | Matuska: prior dismissal waived further review or is final? | Court: Dismissal of prior appeal rendered the initial judgment final; further challenges to forfeiture of vehicle and currency are barred by res judicata |
| Whether court should address statutory sufficiency (N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-36(1)(e)) for forfeiture of the $618 | Matuska: statute does not authorize forfeiture of the seized currency | State: statute permits forfeiture | Court: Did not reach the statutory argument because res judicata bars relitigation |
| Whether the contents of the vehicle were properly forfeited | State: contents specified in amended judgment are subject to forfeiture | Matuska: contents were not forfeited in original judgment and should be returned | Court: Because amended judgment vacated, contents forfeiture set aside; State conceded original judgment omitted contents and they should have been returned |
Key Cases Cited
- Fargo Glass & Paint Co. v. Randall, 673 N.W.2d 261 (N.D. 2004) (explains Rule 60(a) may correct clerical errors but not substantive changes)
- Gruebele v. Gruebele, 338 N.W.2d 805 (N.D. 1983) (Rule 60(a) limits and purpose regarding corrections)
- United States v. Stuart, 392 F.2d 60 (3d Cir. 1968) (Rule 60(a) for corrections that clarify but do not alter judgment)
- Kelly v. Bank Building & Equipment Corp. of Am., 453 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 1972) (distinguishing substantive amendments from clerical corrections)
- MayPort Farmers Co-Op v. St. Hilaire Seed Co., 825 N.W.2d 883 (N.D. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Estate of Schmidt, 572 N.W.2d 430 (N.D. 1997) (prior voluntary dismissal of appeal renders judgment final and bars relitigation)
- Schnell v. Schnell, 252 N.W.2d 14 (N.D. 1977) (dismissal of an appeal makes the judgment final and res judicata)