An interesting attempt to combat a vehicle forfeiture. In this case, the vehicle was to be forfeit due to a First Degree DUI conviction. But, the defense claimed that due to the value of the vehicle, there was a real-property homestead-exemption. An interesting argument that the conciliation court agreed with, but the district court rejected.
I will agree that the Torgelson v. Real Property argument at least made it an interesting fight. But I’m not surprised that they lost.
A12-0217 Matthew Roy Nielsen, petitioner, Appellant, vs. 2003 Honda Accord, Respondent.
Hennepin County District Court, Hon. George F. McGunnigle.
The motor-vehicle exemption provision, Minnesota Statutes section 550.37, subdivision 12a (2010), does not preclude or limit a prosecuting authority from executing a forfeiture action to seize a repeat drunk driver’s motor vehicle used to commit a designated offense under Minnesota Statutes section 169A.63, subdivision 1(e) (2010), or require the state to pay him the value of the forfeited vehicle.
Affirmed. Judge Kevin G. Ross.
By: Landon J. Ascheman, Esq.
Landon@AschemanSmith.com
(B) 612.217.0077 (C) 651.280.9533