Aguirre v. Elko Cnty. Sheriff's Office
| Decision Date | 05 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 82445 |
| Citation | 508 P.3d 886 |
| Parties | Efren AGUIRRE, Jr., Appellant, v. ELKO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Gerber Law Offices, LLP, and Zachary A. Gerber and Travis W. Gerber, Elko, for Appellant.
Tyler J. Ingram, District Attorney, and Rand J. Greenburg, Deputy District Attorney, Elko County, for Respondent.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, SILVER, CADISH, and PICKERING, JJ.
In this appeal, we primarily consider whether Nevada's homestead exemption protects real property from civil forfeiture and whether an incarcerated individual who records a homestead declaration while serving his or her prison sentence qualifies as a bona fide resident of the homestead property. In the proceeding below, the district court determined that the homestead exemption may, as a general matter, protect against civil forfeiture. The court found that the appellant did not substantially comply with the residency requirement of the homestead exemption under NRS 115.020, however, because he made his declarations of homestead while incarcerated. Accordingly, the district court entered a judgment of forfeiture against appellant, from which this appeal was taken.
As to the homestead exemption's reach, we hold that there is no forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption and public policy does not support the creation of such an exception. Regarding bona fide residence status, we hold that incarcerated individuals may still be deemed residents for purposes of the homestead exemption under NRS 115.020. Applying these standards, we conclude that appellant's homestead declaration substantially complied with NRS 115.020, and the district court therefore erred when it entered a judgment of forfeiture. Accordingly, we reverse.
In 2016, appellant Efren Aguirre, Jr.’s parents conveyed to him a home and real property located in Spring Creek, Nevada (the Property). In October 2017, Aguirre was arrested for trafficking controlled substances after a search of the Property revealed over 80 grams of heroin. The State subsequently charged Aguirre with two counts of Trafficking a Schedule I Controlled Substance. On November 2, 2017, respondent Elko County Sheriff's Office filed a complaint for forfeiture of the Property, the proceedings for which were stayed pending resolution of Aguirre's criminal case. On November 21, 2017, while in jail, Aguirre recorded his initial Declaration of Homestead, which stated his intent to claim and use the Property as a homestead. In August 2018, the court accepted Aguirre's guilty plea to one count of Trafficking a Schedule I Controlled Substance. In October 2018, the court entered a judgment of conviction, sentencing Aguirre to a term of incarceration of 48 to 120 months and imposing a fine of $100.
In December 2018, while incarcerated, Aguirre leased the Property to a third party on a week-to-week basis. The lease agreement specifically acknowledged that Aguirre claimed and intended that the Property remain his homestead and that he intended to occupy the Property after his release from prison.
In March 2020, the Sheriff moved for summary judgment in the civil forfeiture action, arguing that Aguirre's declaration of homestead was invalid because he did not reside at the Property when he recorded it and all right, title, and interest in the Property had vested in the Sheriff before Aguirre claimed a homestead exemption. Aguirre opposed the motion, arguing that under Article 4, Section 30 of the Nevada Constitution, and NRS 115.010(1), his recorded homestead declaration protected the Property from forfeiture. He asserted that because he recorded his homestead declaration before any final process in the forfeiture action, his declaration preempts forfeiture. Recognizing that NRS 115.010(5) excludes property held under allodial title from protection from forfeiture, Aguirre argued that by specifically excluding that type of title, the Legislature intended for the homestead protections to preempt forfeiture of real property held under other forms of title, including his Property. Aguirre also moved for summary judgment in his favor on the same grounds.
In May 2020, while in prison and while a decision on the parties' summary judgment motions was pending, Aguirre recorded an amended Declaration of Homestead. In July 2020, following a hearing, the district court denied both summary judgment motions, concluding, as relevant here, that (1) on its face, NRS 115.010(1) ’s homestead protections appear to apply to the Property, as neither party alleged that Aguirre holds allodial title to the Property such that it would not be afforded protection under NRS 115.010(5) ; (2) other states have found that a homestead exemption protects covered properties from forfeiture; and (3) "[t]he Nevada Constitution and Nevada Revised Statutes have expressly stated the exceptions to the homestead exemption," and "[f]orfeiture is not one of them." The district court determined that Aguirre's homestead declaration was timely because it was recorded before execution of sale, but issues of fact remained as to whether his declaration substantially complied with NRS 115.020(2) ’s requirements for a valid homestead declaration, particularly including whether he was a bona fide resident of the Property when he recorded the declaration.
In September 2020, after conducting a bench trial and considering post-trial briefing, the district court concluded that Aguirre did not "substantially comply" with NRS 115.010 ’s requirements for a homestead exemption because he filed his declarations of homestead while incarcerated and, thus, did not have actual possession of the Property for homesteading purposes. The court further concluded that forfeiture was proper because Aguirre used the Property to commit a drug offense. In so concluding, the court rejected Aguirre's claim that forfeiture of the Property valued at roughly $298,000 violated the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The court reasoned that a forfeiture of nearly three times the maximum $100,000 fine allowed by statute when Aguirre was convicted did not per se violate the Eighth Amendment and, considering the gravity of Aguirre's offense, the fine was not excessive. Accordingly, the district court awarded the Sheriff a judgment of forfeiture. Aguirre appeals.
A valid homestead is exempt from civil forfeiture
In denying summary judgment, the district court determined that forfeiture is not one of the exceptions to the homestead protections under either the Nevada Constitution or the Nevada Revised Statutes, such that the Property was not subject to forfeiture if Aguirre met the requirements for a valid homestead declaration. Although the district court ultimately determined that Aguirre did not qualify as a "householder," i.e., the occupier of the Property in actual possession of it, and that Aguirre consequently could not validly declare a homestead exemption, we conclude that the court correctly determined that a valid homestead is exempt from forfeiture.
The Nevada Constitution provides that "[a] homestead as provided by law, shall be exempt from forced sale under any process of law." Nev. Const. art. 4, § 30. The Constitution creates two specific exceptions to the homestead exemption, namely, that "no property shall be exempt from sale for [1] taxes or [2] for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said premises, or for the erection of improvements thereon." Id. NRS 115.010(1) codifies the general rule exempting homesteads from any "forced sale on execution or any final process from any court," while NRS 115.010(3) codifies the constitutional exceptions to the homestead exemption.
The Sheriff argues on appeal that even if Aguirre's homestead declaration were valid, the Property would nevertheless be subject to forfeiture because Aguirre used the Property in trafficking several Schedule I substances, as evidenced by the drugs found in the search of the Property. While acknowledging that the Nevada Constitution and NRS 115.010(3) establish specific exceptions that are inapplicable here, the Sheriff, relying on Breedlove v. Breedlove, 100 Nev. 606, 691 P.2d 426 (1984), and Maki v. Chong, 119 Nev. 390, 75 P.3d 376 (2003), asserts that public policy warrants creating a forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption.1 We disagree, as neither Breedlove nor Maki supports creating a forfeiture exception to the homestead exemption and such an exception would thwart the goal of the homestead exemption.
With the understanding that Nevada's "constitutional and statutory provisions relating to homesteads should be liberally construed" and require only substantial compliance, McGill v. Lewis, 61 Nev. 28, 40, 116 P.2d 581, 583 (1941), and that "[t]he law does not favor forfeitures and statutes imposing them must be strictly construed," Wilshire Ins. Co. v. State, 94 Nev. 546, 550, 582 P.2d 372, 375 (1978), we turn to Breedlove and Maki . In Breedlove, the homesteader invoked the homestead exemption in an attempt to avoid paying a child-support judgment, 100 Nev. at 607, 691 P.2d at 426, a tactic which clearly contravened the purpose of the homestead exemption, see Jackman v. Nance, 109 Nev. 716, 718, 857 P.2d 7, 8 (1993) . Moreover, the homesteader in Breedlove consistently acted in bad faith to avoid paying child support, most notably by creating a fraudulent trust to attempt to protect his home against his ex-wife's attempts to collect on the child-support judgment. 100 Nev. at 607, 691 P.2d at 426.
Here, creating an exception would result in Aguirre's family losing their home,...
To continue reading
Request your trial