Forfeiture of Suit Cases and Miscellaneous Items, In re, Docket Nos. 125292

• Decision Date: 18 February 1992
• Docket Number: 129478,Docket Nos. 125292
• Parties: In re FORFEITURE OF SUIT CASES AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. In re FORFEITURE OF 5773 MARBLE DRIVE, TROY, MICHIGAN. 193 Mich.App. 132, 483 N.W.2d 650
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 650

483 N.W.2d 650

In re FORFEITURE OF SUIT CASES AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.

In re FORFEITURE OF 5773 MARBLE DRIVE, TROY, MICHIGAN.

Docket Nos. 125292, 129478.

193 Mich.App. 132, 483 N.W.2d 650

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 12, 1991, at Detroit.

Decided Feb. 18, 1992, at 9:35 a.m.

Released for Publication May 19, 1992.

[193 MICHAPP 133] Anthony, Hearsch & Seibert by Robert J. Seibert, Mount Clemens, for Chesterfield Tp.

Richard Thompson, Pros. Atty. and Michael J. Modelski, Chief, Appellate Div., Pontiac, for Oakland County.

Before WEAVER, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.

MICHAEL J. KELLY, Judge.

These consolidated cases involve issues regarding jurisdiction over seized property subject to forfeiture. Both appeals are by leave granted.

[193 MICHAPP 134] Chesterfield Township police arrested two men and seized as the forfeitable proceeds of criminal narcotics activity over $500,000 in cash, gold coins, and jewelry. Chesterfield Township then secured an order from the Macomb Circuit Court maintaining the status quo. The order preserved possession of the money, gold, and jewelry in the custody of Chesterfield Township until all claims regarding the property were adjudicated. The Oakland County Prosecutor filed a motion to set aside the status quo order. From the trial court's denial of that motion, Oakland County appeals by leave granted.

Following Chesterfield Township's filing of its motion to preserve the status quo, the Oakland County Prosecutor filed in Oakland Circuit Court a forfeiture claim involving thirty-six items, including the cash, gold, and jewelry that are the subject matter of the Macomb County action. Chesterfield Township subsequently filed a motion for summary disposition in the Oakland County case, arguing that the Oakland County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the items already under the jurisdiction of the Macomb Circuit Court. Chesterfield Township appeals by leave granted from the Oakland Circuit Court's denial of its motion for summary disposition.

Oakland County argues on appeal that jurisdiction over the forfeiture claim regarding the cash, jewelry, and coins properly lies in Oakland Circuit Court because it was the first court to accept jurisdiction over the forfeiture action. It is Oakland County's position that although the Macomb Circuit Court first addressed Chesterfield Township's motion to preserve the status quo, that action did not concern forfeiture and, therefore, did not vest the Macomb Circuit Court with jurisdiction in the matter. Lastly, Oakland County [193 MICHAPP 135] argues that because the three items at issue in this case are related to a much larger forfeiture action taking place in the Oakland Circuit Court, it would be more efficient and convenient to try the claims together in that court.

Chesterfield Township, on the other hand, asserts that it first obtained jurisdiction over the matter by its filing of the motion to preserve the status quo. Furthermore, it contends that Oakland County lacks standing to commence forfeiture proceedings with respect to the three items at issue here.

Forfeiture proceedings are in rem proceedings. In re Forfeiture of $28,088 of United States Currency, 172 Mich.App. 200, 203, 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). In rem jurisdiction over personal property situated within this state lies with the courts of record of the state. M.C.L. Sec. 600.755; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.755. Thus, both the Macomb and the Oakland Circuit Court have jurisdiction over the property at issue in this case. Our...