*1 judge into that Mr Adams was looked at this taken consideration hard defendant and sentence, in I with a had the made a this case do not faced recidivist life agreed drop charge second-guess. in choose to ex- change guilty plea.8 for a
IV.
CONCLUSION years imprison-
Mr. Adams’ of 90 sentence aggravated robbery for is the crime ment affirmed. GAMES-NEELY, Pamela Jean Prosecut Affirmed. Attorney Berkeley County, ing Virginia, on Behalf the WEST VIR STARCHER, Justice, concurring. POLICE, GINIA STATE Petitioner Be 2002) (Filed 2, July low, Appellee, single point a I There is wish make in case. this PROPERTY, REAL A INCLUDING briefs, According to defendant in BRICK RANCH HOUSE AND GA parole prison this ease was released from on RAGE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1175 August Two 1999. months later he wаs SAM ROAD MASON LOCATED IN committing the robberies that led to the MILL CREEK DISTRICT BERKE OF ninety-year prison is at sentence that issue in COUNTY, 13, LEY MAP WV PARCEL appar- instant This is case. defendant LIBRE AND FOLIO BOOK ently “poster a child” for how our correction- Respondent Below, system failing al is us. Sowers, Appellant. Hattie begins The defendant’s official “record” grand larceny conviction No. 29999. apparently by a followed substantial stretch Supreme of Appeals Court says prison. prosecution the defen- Virginia. spent dant has his adult at entire life “crime,” likely will he continue in that Submitted 2002. Jan. path. judge The circuit saw case the Decided Feb. 2002. way, imposed probably same what forty-five-year-old life sentence for this de- Dissenting Opinion of Justice fendant. Maynard May I judgment, concur the Court’s because Concurring Opinion of Justice I possibility think there a fan* as a July Starcher judge, circuit I would have read defen- truly dangerous as a person dant who needs very long
to be for a restrained time to so,
protect public. I Even would have
probably imposed twenty-five-year about a
sentence, grounds ten or years is a fair
twelve there chance this defen- tendency
dant’s to crime and violence would enough parole
have abated to let the board Ninety years look at
take him. seems too
long weapon. with no But crime Although argued, eventually eligible we make no comment merits he because will issue, point we will out that Mr. Adams’ parole consideration. sentence, years sentence of 90 is not a life as he *3 Berkeley attorney of prosecuting
County, Games-Neely, Appellee Pamela Jean July filed a alleged that the where which she found, оf a drugs were which consisted garage, and a brick ranch house proceeds to the “as traceable illegal to the sale a controlled substance.” Through that: the State averred ... officers seized excess scales, grams marijuana, wrappers, cash, paraphernalia and other items associ- *4 ated the use and distribution of Mari- juana. Burcham, Stacy Ashby,
6. ... Paul and ... and Paul confessed the use Wolford subject marijuana premises. sale of Christopher Quasebarth, Assistant C. subjects that 7. further admitted The Prosecuting Attorney, Martinsburg, Ap- for were, proceeds drug in the of the sales pellee. part, satisfy running costs of used to the Mills, subject premises. D. Law of Kevin D. the Kevin Office Mills, Martinsburg, for Hattie Sowers. illegal presence of substances The pervasive throughout premises was the so
ALBRIGHT, Justice. (even by smell outside the detectable house) that no one who visited lived on appeals January Hattie from the Sowers premises na- the could unaware of the Berkeley order Circuit of Court illegal drug taking- ture the activities of County, denying her motion to set aside place therein. previously order default entered in fact Confidential informants did against judg- her. of As a result the default of order, purchases at two controlled make least Appellant’s home was ment the forfeit- prior to premises substances from the the pursuant Virginia to the State of West ed of the search warrant. execution Virginia Forfeiture Act the West Contraband (the Act”), Virginia “Forfeiture West Code subject items from the The seized (1988) (Repl.Vol.2000 §§ -707 60A-7-701 to premises together the be- observed Supp.2001). Upon a & full review the are consistent havior and confessions and arguments raised examination drug oper- method of [sic] dealer’s controlling statutory find language, we premises be- ation and consistent with the lower court committed аnd accord- error drug ing illegal traffick- to facilitate used ingly, we reverse. ing and is thus the State forfeit[able] Virginia. AND
I. FACTUAL PROCEDURAL copy was with a Appellant served BACKGROUND petition and a summons on the forfeiture 11, 2000, 25, 2000, August and April Virginia as an owner resident On the West State drugs at where the were seized. Police executed a search warrant County, In to the filed Berkeley Mason her answer Sam Road September Appellant alleged marijuana and Virginia, and seized both vari- violated drug paraphernalia. The offi- State Police ous items of the West who and constitutions three individuals were both the state federal cers аrrested the forth in the possession procuring the information set to be seized determined Burcham, Ashby, petition. further averred drug Stacy items: Paul and She her premises obtained to search the warrant Paul Wolford. requisite probable without Rules 59 was issued Pursuant to and the West Procedure, cause. Appel- Rules Civil sought lant relief from the default judg- filed a motion default motions, support Appellant In of these Appellant ment1 based on fact that the she averred that was not sole owner of days expira- filed answer four after her joint property, but owner with rather thirty-day period provided tion of the time Aquino, daughter, Carol her Lee she answering under the Forfeiture Act. See 60A-7-705(d).2 Option response In circuit court that W.Va.Code informed the Corporation judg- Mortgage efforts to obtain default State’s had a inter- ment, Appellant argued age $45,000. that her est the amount indigence filing to the late contributed her lack of Based on the service of the forfeiture answer;3 she would be if rendered homeless Option on Ms. One Mort- forfeited; was and the gage Corporation, Appellant argued prejudiced by filing. State was the late judg- she was entitled to have addition, Appellant statutory raised the ment set аside. See W. Va.Code 60A-7- ownership. defense of innocent See W.Va. 705(b); also 60A-7- see W.Va.Code 60A-7-703(a)(7).4 defense, Code As a final 705(a)(4)(vii) (requiring peti- that forfeiture Appellant averred that identity persons all “[t]he tion contain jurisdiction proceed without because it had *5 having corporations perfected security a in- parties failed to name all in the interested its subject property...”). in terest or the lien petition, by required forfeiture as West Vir- Relying grounds on the same as those assert- 60A-7-705(b). ginia Code by Appellant,6 Aquino ed the Ms. intervened solely four-day filing Based on the late of proceedings in motion seeking the filed a Appellant’s petition, answer to the forfeiture judgment.7 relief from the default granted court judgment the circuit a default While circuit court the the denied motions State, by to the order dated October Appellant Aquino the and Ms. to set aside Appellant’s and vested prop- title to the judgment, the default court the lower did erty Virginia in the West Police.5 In- modify original forfeiture, granting the order cluded in the default order were in January clarify its dated order findings Appellant the circuit court’s that the only Appellant’s subject in property the record owner of the the one-half interеst persons subject property and that no known to the was forfeited to were have a the security in property. Virginia. interest the State West The modified order September knowledge 1. This motion was filed on ted 2000. or omitted without his or con- 60A-7-703(a)(7). sent.” W.Va.Code# 2. While record the before this Court does not judgment, Appellant include State's 5. the motion for default The asserts in her that she re- brief parties agree hearing quested objections that the basis of the State's a on her written Appellant’s judgment, was the motion untimeliness the State's motion for default but that hearing answer. the trial did not hold a on the motion. State's forfeiture delay, explanation Appellant In of the as- age years seeking serts her of 66 and further avers that her motion relief from the default prospect losing judgment, Aquino simple her home caused her to Ms. "[a] asserts that pains County hospitaliza- Berkeley suffer chest title land resulted search in records According Appellant, by legal hospital- tion. to the room conducted counsel’s assistant in ization, approximately well as as need to contact and confer 90 seconds revealed” time both Florida, family delayed ownership Aquino members interest of located Ms. and the signing by prepared Option Mortgage Corpo- her from the answer counsel interest One shortly 30-day period until after the time had ration. passed. 7. Ms. filed an amended motion in which provides days passed The Forfeiture Act “no she stated that had since the and, may pursuant be forfeited [W.Va. under this subdivision seizure of the Virginia to West ], 60A-7-703(a) 60A-7-705(4), Code to the extent of an inter- Code no forfeiture ac- owner, by any permitted est of an reason of act or tion to be or served omission initiated on an by days. passage established that owner have been commit- owner of after the of 90 § 60A-7- quired Virginia Code specified title shall further that vest 705(b). Act Section one- Police to the part, that: provides, pertinent Aquino, prior of Carol Lee half interest Mortgage Option Corporation, lien of One filing peti- [the At time of any other bona fide lien or interest thereafter, “and a practicable as soon tion] or July any.” if The prior to recorded petition shall be copy of the for forfeiture could; Aquino’s Ms. in- circuit reasoned wpon or owners served the owner tervention, as all of a property, as well holders seized security interest or or of perfected lien change status default doеs not statutory lien in same possessory against the interest of Hattie obtained class, if known. Sowers, joint own- as one two Sowers. 60A-7-705(b) respondent property, sup- received (emphasis ers W.Va.Code personal pursuant West service plied). August Rule of Civil Procedure fact Appellant dispute not The does ap- said nor and did Answer timely properly that she was served person respond
pear counsel to chal- copy petition. Her of the forfeiture allegation timely in a manner. set forth proceedings arises lenge to the forfeiture regarding The statute forfeitures leaves Aquino, failure to serve Ms. from the State’s to the with no discretion as the Court Option joint property, and owner of the untimely answer. statute effect Mortgage, properly of a record- a holder requires that “shall” the Court enter subject property. According ed lien if judgment order answer Appellant, failure to serve to the the State’s untimely. owners and lien holders of record all the order unenforceable renders Appellant from lower seeks relief requires the forfeiture motion for from court’s denial her relief *6 dismissed. the default requirement, of sec Underlying the II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 705(b) that or of the tion “owner ownеrs” the concerning presents This ease issues subject petition be property to a forfeiture As interpretation of the Forfeiture Act. the objective petition the serwed statutory involving interpreta with all cases rights notifying property all owners whose tion, given novo to our review is de the need pending may by forfeiture of the be affected questions Syl. Pt. of law. See resolve proceedings and of the forfeiture extension A.L., Chrystal R.M. Charlie right to individu corollary to be heard those (‘Where (1995) the issue 459 S.E.2d entities, process required due als or as clearly circuit appeal on an from the court is and provisions of our state federal Constitu involving interpreta law a an question 60A-7-705(b); see § tions. W.Va.Code statute, Const, Const, apply a de a we novo standard tion of Ill, 10; § art. U.S. W.Va. review.”); Syl. Pt. accord West ease, statutory ob In this amend. XIV. Garretson, Rights Human Comm’n process principles jectives extending due (1996). With W.Va. perfected property all affected owners or to guide, reviewing principle proceed our as we posi holders were not met. The State’s lien us. to the issues before discuss statutory that no violation arose because tion opportunity to answer Appellant had аn ownership contest forfeiture her III. DISCUSSION compelling property in her is neither interest Improper A. Service 705(b) clearly convincing. con nor Section parties having an owner templates cir that all Appellant contends that the subject property that is the refusing ship to interest in erred in dismiss cuit court copy a petition be served with of a forfeiture petition for forfeiture because State’s inability to barring upon persons the State’s petition was not all served “diligent despite ef- identify all such owners property in the as re- having an interest 60A-7-705(b). 705(b) Here, may forts.” W.Va.Code of the Forfeiturе result in the record fails to indicate that the State’s ongoing pro- either dismissal of Option to serve Ms. failure ceedings or any the vacation of orders Aquino en- Mortgage inability was the result of to in such proceedings, barring tered identify Aquino either Ms. lien or the holder inability identify State’s all such owners subsequent requisite of record to the “dili- expending “diligent identify after efforts” gent contemplated by efforts” the statute. property owners. W.Va.Code 60A-7- 705(b). legislative
Given the of man selection datory language served” —in The record submitted to this fails to Court —“shall drafting statutory provision concerning identify any basis from which we could con- service, we conclude that “diligent the State’s failure that the clude State undertook ef- having both yet serve individuals owner identify forts” and was unable to Ms. ship interest with a Appel- as half-interest owner in the copy petition fatal Accordingly, under lant’s residence. find that we Nelson, Syl. facts of this Pt. ease. See the circuit in denying committed error Bd., Employees Appellant’s Public Ins. motion for from the relief (holding S.E.2d 86 ground order on the is well “[i]t established that the word seeking forfeiture was not served ‘shall,’ in language absence of on all required by the owners as Virgi- 60A-7-705(b). showing contrary part statute intent nia Code Legislature, should be afforded a man identity While the of a lien holder connotation”). datory significance can easily record be discovered as as a service under the Forfeiture Act is demon record,8 property owner of Section language strated additional found Sec appear does signifi to attach the same 705(b), requires petitions tion all cance to service on the lien as on holder for forfeiture “shall” include owner(s). We reach this conclusion substantially any notice “To follows: language to the requires due service on property: claimant the within described perfected “holders interest or right You have the to file an answer to this a possessory lien or of statutory lien in the in, petition setting your forth title only identity same class” when the of such of, right possession within holders “known.” W.Va.Code 60A-7- thirty days you from hereof. If the service *7 705(b) (emphasis supplied). Whereas the answer, fail to file an a final order forfeit- statutory provision governing of a service property ing the to will the state be en- petition clearly imposes duty forfeiture on tered, and such order is not to “diligent State undertake efforts” to appeal.” identify property owner(s), no such corol 60A-7-705(b). upon W.Va.Code Based lary duty appears discovering to attach to potential permanent deprivation prop- identity possible of a lien holder. Conse erty finality and the built-in of forfeiture quently, resulting we do not find error from proceedings, mandatory combined with the identify Op the State’s failure to and serve statutory language concerning service of for- Mortgage tion peti One with the forfeiture petitions upon feiture the “owner owners” tion in this case.9 holders, property, of the and the lien “if known,” we determine that the State’s failure Untimely Effect B. Answer petition upon to effect service of a forfeiture all property subject the owners of to such a sanctioning judgment In a default petition under provisions timely Section failure to answer forfeiture supra 8. See note 6. easily through be discovered a routine search of records, public the State should undertake the caution, however, finding 9. We that this should necessary identify efforts to all lien holders of implicit sanctioning not be viewed as of the record. identify failure State's holder in the lien this case. Where the holder of a interest can
243 except statutory apply it it where the lan- favor ‘and never Appellаnt argues that the Dodd, 705(d) directory warrants.’” Pearson v. clearly is or discre- law guage of Section 254, 171, 261, mandatory. 221 176 tionary, and not See Russell 159 S.E.2d Moore, (1975), grounds Lilly Inc. Transfer, v. 158 W.Va. on other overruled (1975) (“If 433, Duke, 228, the intention 122 212 S.E.2d 435 v. 180 W.Va. 376 S.E.2d (1988) compliance Legislature Cheney, is to (quoting make v. 45 W.Va. essential, (1898)); 478, 920, provision of a statute stat- 921 also 31 S.E. see mandatory requirements; in its but ute is Crowley, 48 Sturm v. essential, compliance provi- is not where (recognizing that “[i]t S.E.2d 353 directory.”). Conversely, the State sion is elementary that a is is an rule subject language of favored”). maintains that the Sec- never 705(d) mandatory phrased tion is terms for Many courts conсluded that have consequently prevents a circuit court and strictly feiture should be construed statutes setting from aside under remedy fact is a based on the that forfeiture discretionary recognized principles of review. usually repugnance.11 that is viewed 55(e), 60(b). See W.Va.R.Civ.P. is generally Based the fact that forfeiture legal remedy, language in Section as a we determine relevant disfavored 705(d) liberally provides: Act is to Forfeiture person(s) favor whose construed no or claim within If answer is filed strictly rights are to be affected days
thirty
of the date of service
against forfeiture.
construed
(b)
pursuant
petition
subsection
this
section,
thirty days
or within
of the first
Notwithstanding
policy of abhor-
this clear
(b)
publication pursuant
subsection
forfeiture,
presented with a stat-
ring
we are
section,
court shall enter an order
unambigu-
utory
clearly
provision
forfeiting
seized
to the state.
to a
ously provides that when
answer
60A-7-705(d).
thirty
construing
not filed within
In
W.Va.Code
Act,10
days
first
mindful
the date of service
we are
either
the Forfeiture
“[fjorfeiture
harsh,
publication,
circuit court “shall”
as ‘a
enter
has been described
dreadful,
remedy';
forfeiting the
generally
courts
dis-
order
seized
even
10. The author of this
(2001);
opinion, separate
742
Matter
Ill.Dec.
N.E.2d 1256
from the
(Iowa 1992);
questions
finding
Wagner,
v.
majority,
legislative
set
244 60A-7-705(d). (2) lay answering;
state. W.Va.Code Accord- presence of mate ingly, defenses; we hold language that the of Section rial of fact issues and meritorious 705(d) (3) significance states interests at (4) stake; degree intransigence that the court “shall” an enter order forfeit- part ing Sylla if on defaulting party.’ seized to the state an 3, modified, thirty days or claim is not bus Point as answer filed within Parsons Con 464, Supply Corp., sol. peti- of the date of service of Gas 163 256 W.Va. (1979).” 758 publication, mandatory. Syl. Hively tion or of the first is S.E.2d Pt. Martin, Nelson, 171 at 300 See W.Va. S.E.2d at S.E.2d (1991). pt. 1. syl. Syl. Smith, 60(b) County Pt. Wirt Bank v. Application C. of Rule (1992). W.Va. S.E.2d 626 We have Although our decision reverse the further held that “[a] motion to vacate a court’s lower order results from the State’s judgment default addressed to sound comply require failure to with the service ruling discretion the court and the court’s 705(b), imposed by ments Section we none ' on such motion will not be disturbed proceed procedural theless address appeal unless there is a an showing of abuse by upon Appel basis reversal relied Syl. of such discretion.” Intercity Pt. Despite mandatory language lant. Gibson, Realty Company W.Va. 705(d), Appellant Section maintains that (1970). court the circuit still has discretion set The regarding issue raised whether judgment the default pursuant aside to Rule provisions Virginia 60A- Code 60(b) of the West Rules of Civil 7-705(d) prevent application of the relief procedural governing Procedure. rule judgments mechanisms afforded for default default, 55, expressly Rule provides for relief 55(c) through Rules easily re judgments: such good from “For cause Legislature solved. The expressly has man may entry shown the court set aside “All relating pleading, datеd that: statutes and, judgment by if a default has practice procedure shall have force and entered, may been set it aside in likewise only effect as rules court and shall remain 60(b).”12 accordance Rule modified, in effect unless and suspended until 55(c). R.Civ.P. by or annulled promulgated pursuant rules Where, case, default provisions of this section.”13 W.Va.Code answer, ing party has filed a late this Court (1935) Thus, (Repl.Vol.2000). 51-1-4 there has stated: question is no promulgated that rules under “ following ‘[The factors should be con- authority the state constitution and under by a court sidered there has where been prevail Code 51-1-4 when appearance by conflict, and late answer filed ever is a perceived, there real or (1) defaulting party]: degree preju- legislative between such provisions rules and by dice suffered plaintiff from involving procedures. the de- Hinkle v. See 60(b), According part: longer to Rule equitable in relevant or it is no that the (6) upon just, prospective application; On motion and have such terms as are should or may legal party party’s any the court relieve justifying reason op- other relief from representative order, judgment, from a final eration proceeding following for the reasons: Mis- 60(b). W.Va.R.Civ.P. take, inadvertence, surprise, neglect, excusable cause; (2) newly or unavoidable discovered acknowledges This same statute the rule-mak diligence evidence which due could not ing authority *9 extended to this Court the state been have discovered in to move time for a providing supreme constitution that "[t]he 59(b); (3) (whether trial under new Rule fraud time, appeals may, court of from time to make extrinsic), heretofore denominated intrinsic or general promulgate regulations and rules and misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an governing pleading, practice procedure and (4) void; (5) party; judgment adverse the is the such and in all other record courts of of released, satisfied, judgment has been or dis- 51-1-4; § this State.” W.Va.Code see W.Va. charged, upon prior judgment or a which it is VIII, § Const. art. vacated, based has been reversed or otherwise
245 744, 112, days publication. Black, 123, thirty holding This S.E.2d its first 164 W.Va. 262 (1979) that (acknowledging of “force is consistent with our conclusion the 750 absence statutes, conflicting like other to with West Forfeiture forfeiture and effect” statutes Procedure); liberally to be favor of Virginia of see also is construed the Rules Civil may person(s) (providing 1 that Rules of Civ- whose interests W.Va.R.Civ.P. “govern in all affected. procedure il the Procedure actions, suits, trial of all courts record foregoing, Based we reverse the proceedings a civil nature judicial other of Berkeley of decision the Circuit Court of cognizable as at law or cases whether County entry and remand this matter for of exceptions equity, qualifications the and order, vacating January an order 81”). in Rule stated granted judgment to a default against Appellant. syllabus v. point one Bennett Warner, S,E.2d 920 179 W.Va. 372 and remanded. Reversed (1988), Court that article “[u]nder this held Constitution, MAYNARD, Justice, dissenting. eight, of our section three Appeals Suрreme shall have the Court (Filed 2002) May power promulgate for all of the to rules agree majority I with the that the circuit process, prac to courts of the State related appellant’s denying court’s motion order tice, the’ procedure, and which shall have judgment relief from should be reversed. Davis, force and effect of law.” In State 60A-7-705(d), § language of W.Va.Code (1987), over 178 W.Va. which directs the circuit court to enter de- grounds by R.L. ruled other ex rel. judgment against party a fault who files an Bedell, 192 S.E.2d 893 W.Va. untimely answer a forfeiture (1994), recognized that our rule- we “under Nevertheless, mandatory. the circuit сourt by ... making authority promulgated rules Rule of retains discretion under Civil Proce- law have the force and effect of Court dure to set aside the default supersede procedural and statutes will However, disagree majority I at conflict with them.” failure to effect the State’s service 772; Virginia at also Div. S.E.2d see West upon petition forfeiture all owners Butler, Highways subject property should result in the dismiss- (recognizing that Rule S.E.2d against proceeding al of the forfeiture statute, 702, and not a is the of Evidence properly was appellant who served. determining paramount authority for wheth appel- majority though holds even qualified give an expert an er not timely with a properly lant was served opinion). in accor- copy petition forfeiture Upon of these established consideration 60A-7-705(b), with W.Va.Code dance judi- concerning conflicts between principles Aquino, properly Ms. failure serve State’s cially-enacted procedure legisla- rules of joint property, owner of the renders the a directives, procedural tive acts contain against appellant void. forfeiture action 60(b) has the force we conclude that Rule not simply This does make sense. law; pro- applies effect purpose 60A- The obvious of W.Va.Code Act; and su- ceedings under 7-705(b) that all own- is to ensure 60A-7~705(d) persedes West Code by may rights whose be affected forfei- ers 705(d) can be read to the extent that Section pro- timely process and ture are served with grant of court of its deprive circuit required opportunity vided to be heard judgment a default or- discretion to review process provisions of our State the due Accordingly, we hold that circuit der. and Federal That Ms. Constitutions. 60(b) of the court has discretion under Rule at all properly served does not affect to set Virginia Rules Civil Procedure opportunity to appellant’s answer and pursu- aside default entered ownership contest forfeiture of her inter- 60A-7-705(d) of ant to Code property. in her est file an- for failure to the Forfeiture Act Therefore, thirty days of date I would have remanded this claim swer or within for reconsideration or within case to circuit court of service *10 appellant’s every every motion for relief from “i” de- must dot “t.” cross As we If, discretion, in recently fault its the cir- made clear in a Mingo case from judgment, cuit set County, aside the default before this Court will sustain a for appellant given opрortunity would then be property, feiture of the record must contain property. to her adequate contest and substantial evidence that disputed “property represented the fruits of above, Accordingly, for I the reason stated illegal drug dealing.” Burgraff, State v. dissent. 746, 748, S.E.2d curiam). STARCHER, Justice, (per The State failed to do in concurring. so this instance. (Filed 2002) July duty has a “public The State to maintain clear, majority opinion As makes for- justice system in the confidence criminal ... feiture, form, harsh, any in is “a even dread- by assuring operates it in a fair and ful, remedy” greatly that courts disfavor. impartial Sammons, manner.” Nicholas 478, 480, Cheney, State 45 W.Va. 31 S.E. 363 S.E.2d (1898). 920, 921 This includes the forfeiture (1987). cannot, not, rely should personal property of real or under the Con- upon procedural such technicalities as the traband Act. provisions Act the Forfeiture to strictly The Forfeiture Act is to be con- take because to do so undermines against strued the State because the act of public system. in Every confidence indi- taking property individual, particu- from an vidual with an interest in larly who adjudged guilty has not one been being considered forfeiture must receive crime, beyond a doubt draconian. The proceeding, notice of the fоrfeiture and each appellant, Sowers, charged, Hattie was not given opportunity must respond. crime, yet let alone convicted of a the State end, prove And in the the State must instant filed the action to take home her substantial property repre- evidence people living possessed in because the home sents of illegal drug dealing. the fruits marijuana and sold and used some of that I respectfully therefore concur. money pay bill, phone or cable or the bill, food expense. some other household Aquino,
Carol Lee who was never served the forfeiture joint
simply a owner of the home with Ms.
Sowers, yet having she faced her owner- Virginia, ship STATE Wеst property impaired interest Plaintiff Below, through Appellee, the actions of State. The State put jeopardy also rights Option One Corporation Mortgage to use the Anthony TYLER, Lance Defendant $45,000 loan. Below, Appellant. sum, had this Court allowed the default No. 29759. stand, individuals would have Supreme Appeals Court of ownership lost their interests the real Virginia. making any without showing estate the State any way those individuals con- were Submitted Jan. drug dealing, guilty nected to let alone March Decided proper- crime. Ms. Sower’s interest Dissenting Opinion of Justice ty Option is tied that of Ms. Albright 11, 2002. June Mortgage Corporation all of the —and Concurring Opinion of Justice must interests be considered the Court Maynard July together. the State When chooses wield such a
powerful, destructive instrument as the For-
feiture this Court has made clear that it