Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, A16-0768

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Gildea, Chief Justice.
• Citation: Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, 907 N.W.2d 628 (Minn. 2018)
• Decision Date: 14 February 2018
• Docket Number: A16-0768
• Parties: Russell Eldon BRILES, Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. 2013 GMC TERRAIN, MN License Number 168 KSE, VIN: 2GKFLZE3XD6336507, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

907 N.W.2d 628

Russell Eldon BRILES, Respondent/Cross-Appellant,

v.2013 GMC TERRAIN, MN License Number 168 KSE, VIN: 2GKFLZE3XD6336507, Appellant/Cross-Respondent.

A16-0768

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed: February 14, 2018

James M. Ventura, Wayzata, Minnesota, for respondent/cross-appellant.

Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, First Assistant County Attorney, Shakopee, Minnesota, for appellant/cross-respondent.

Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Americans for Forfeiture Reform.

Daniel J. Koewler, Ramsay Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

OPINION

Gildea, Chief Justice.

This case asks us to interpret the vehicle forfeiture statute, Minnesota Statutes § 169A.63 (2016). Respondent Russell Briles brought a complaint under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(e), challenging the forfeiture of his vehicle and the insurance proceeds payable to him under an insurance policy covering property damage to the vehicle. The district court dismissed the complaint because Briles filed it more than 60 days after he received the notice section 169A.63 requires. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Briles filed his complaint too late, but reversed the district court’s conclusion that the insurance proceeds were subject to forfeiture under section 169A.63. Because we conclude that Briles’s complaint is time barred, but that insurance payments are not subject to forfeiture under section 169A.63, we affirm the court of appeals.

FACTS

Russell Briles owned a 2013 GMC Terrain, which was driven by his son and heavily damaged in a single-vehicle accident. The City of Savage police arrested Briles’s son for driving under the influence of alcohol as a result of the accident and seized the vehicle. On September 25, 2015, the police department served Briles with a timely notice of the seizure and the intention to seek forfeiture of the vehicle, as required by Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8. The notice described Briles’s rights under the statute and informed Briles that if he did not file a complaint for judicial determination of the forfeiture within 60 days, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(e), he would lose the vehicle "automatically." Id. , subd. 8(c). Briles did not file a complaint within 60 days.

Also on September 25, the Scott County Attorney sent a letter to Briles’s insurer, notifying the carrier of the forfeiture. The letter asserted a right to any insurance proceeds for the vehicle and asked the insurer to delay the disbursement of those proceeds until the forfeiture was completed. Briles was not provided a copy of the letter and the County did not otherwise notify him of the County’s intention to seek forfeiture of the insurance proceeds. Briles did not learn of the letter to his insurance company until sometime in December, after the 60-day deadline in Minn. Stat. § 169A83, subd. 8(e) had passed. When he learned of the letter, Briles filed a complaint for judicial determination under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8, challenging the County’s forfeiture of both the vehicle and the insurance proceeds.

The district court dismissed Briles’s complaint. The court concluded that because insurance proceeds are part of all "right, title, and interest" in a vehicle, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 3, Briles received proper notice of the forfeiture of the insurance proceeds in the September 25 letter he received from the police. Given that Briles filed his complaint more than 60 days after he received that notice, the court held that his complaint was untimely and the court had no jurisdiction over it.

Briles appealed and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain , 892 N.W.2d 525, 533 (Minn. App. 2017). The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as untimely. Id. at 530. But the court concluded that insurance proceeds are not part of all "right, title, and interest" in a vehicle and therefore not subject to forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63. Briles , 892 N.W.2d at 531. We granted the County’s petition for review on the question of whether insurance proceeds are subject to forfeiture under section 169A.63 and also granted Briles’s conditional cross-petition for review on the question of whether he timely filed his complaint.¹

ANALYSIS

On appeal, the County argues that the insurance proceeds on Briles’s vehicle as well as the vehicle itself are subject to forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63. Briles disagrees and argues that the district court should not have dismissed his complaint as untimely under the statute. The parties’ arguments present issues of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. State v. Leathers , 799 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Minn. 2011).

Before turning to the parties’ specific arguments, we look first at the statute. Under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(a), vehicles used in the commission of a "designated offense" are subject to forfeiture. The offense with which police charged Briles’s son—second-degree driving while impaired—is a "designated offense." Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1(e)(1) (defining "designated offense" as including second-degree driving while impaired). By operation of the forfeiture statute, "[a]ll right, title, and interest in a vehicle subject to forfeiture ... vests in the appropriate agency upon commission of the conduct resulting in the designated offense." Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 3. But the agency must give notice of its intention to forfeit to the owner of the vehicle and inform the owner of the owner’s right to challenge the forfeiture. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(b)–(c). Specifically, the notice must tell the owner about the owner’s right to seek a judicial determination of the forfeiture by filing a complaint within 60 days of receiving that notice, and that if a complaint is not filed within 60 days, the owner will lose the property at issue. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(c)(3). With these statutory provisions in mind, we turn to the parties’ arguments.

I.

We turn first to Briles’s argument that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as untimely. It is undisputed that Briles filed his complaint more than 60 days after he received the September 25 letter from police. Nevertheless, Briles argues that his complaint should be allowed to proceed. We disagree.

As noted above, the statute requires that a complaint for judicial determination of the forfeiture be filed within 60 days of service of the notice the statute mandates. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(e) ; see also Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(c)(3) (requiring that the notice inform the owner that "[y]ou will automatically lose the [property at issue] and the right to be heard in court if you do not file a lawsuit and serve the prosecuting authority within 60 days"). The statute also plainly provides that "an action for the return of a vehicle seized under this section may not be maintained by or on behalf of any person who has been served with a notice of seizure and forfeiture unless the person has complied with this subdivision." Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(f) (emphasis added).

The statute unambiguously requires the timely filing of a petition for judicial determination to challenge the forfeiture of a vehicle.² Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(c)(3). Briles received a timely notice of the intention to forfeit his vehicle, and he therefore knew of the 60-day period in which to file a challenge to that forfeiture. Briles, however, did not file a complaint for judicial determination within that 60-day period. Because Briles did not comply with the statutory time limit, his complaint was untimely, and the district court properly dismissed it. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(f).

In urging us to conclude otherwise, Briles argues that the district court should not have dismissed his complaint because his son stole the vehicle and the vehicle therefore is not subject to forfeiture under the statute. Briles is correct that stolen vehicles are exempt from forfeiture under the statute. See Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1(g) (excluding from the definition of "motor vehicle" vehicles "stolen or taken in violation of the law"). But the time to raise this argument was within 60 days of receipt of the September 25 notice. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(f) (noting that complaint "must state with specificity the grounds on which the claimant alleges the vehicle was improperly seized"). See also Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet , 821 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Minn. 2012) ("If the owner makes no demand for judicial determination or fails to make such a demand within the allotted time, the vehicle is administratively forfeited and the owner loses all rights to the vehicle."). Accordingly, we reject the stolen-vehicle argument.

Briles also argues that his delay beyond the 60-day deadline should be excused based on the doctrine of unclean hands. He contends that the vehicle was stolen and the County knew the vehicle was stolen, and that therefore, the County’s efforts to forfeit the vehicle are inequitable. But even if the 60-day deadline in the statute was subject to tolling on the basis of unclean hands, an issue we need not decide, Briles’s unclean-hands theory does not come close to meeting the "high" standard we apply for tolling. See Sanchez v. State , 816 N.W.2d 550, 560–61 (Minn. 2012) (declining to decide whether equitable tolling applied to toll the statute of limitations where petitioner did not offer evidence sufficient to meet the "necessarily ... high" standard for tolling).

In sum, Briles filed his complaint more than 60 days after he received notice of the intended forfeiture of his vehicle. We therefore hold that the district court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as it challenged the forfeiture of the vehicle.

II.

Even though we have concluded that the district court properly...