If the son was 18 couldn’t this be considered a stolen car?
If a car WAS stolen by a stranger would this nonsense still apply?
I’m confused.
This is a poorly written article that leaves a lot of information out.
First the son did take the car without permission, He got drunk, was involved in a police chase and totaled the car as a result of the chase.
Apparently, Minnesota has a law that allows civil forfeiture of vehicles involved in DUI as a deterrent to said DUI.
The owner of the vehicle was notified via CERTIFIED MAIL of the intent to forfeiture the auto and was advised he had 60 days to file an “innocent owner” affirmative defense.
He ignored the letter.
The City attorney advised his insurance company (Progressive) not to pay out the claim as the vehicle was subject to forfeiture and the insurance money may be considered as part of the claim.
The City went to Court and filed for forfeiture of the insurance money under another statute.
The Court agreed. The owner appealed the decision and only then raised the “innocent owner” defense well after the 60 day window had closed.
Court ruled in City’s favor, owner appealed and the Appellant court upheld in part and reversed in part. It upheld the original forfeiture of the vehicle pursuant to the statute because notification was made and no party having an interest in the vehicle raised an objection (this under the forfeiture statute of the DUI law)
The Court reversed the city’s claim to the insurance money as the statute says the forfeiture only extends to the vehicle and any interest in the vehicle. The insurance money was not a “part of” the vehicle and was not subject to forfeiture.
If you do a Google search of the owner you can read the Appeals Court decision. It is much more detailed than what the article puts forward.
To be sure, it looks like the City attorney was getting “creative” with some aspects of the statute. But had the owner responded to the Certified letter and asserted his innocent owner rights, this would be a moot point.