 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. $1769/25/2001
The issue raised in this appeal is whether statutory interest under MCL 600.6013 is owed when money that was the subject of a forfeiture proceeding under the controlled substances laws is ordered returned to the owner. The Court of Appeals held that statutory interest must be paid.
We conclude that money ordered returned to its owner under the forfeiture procedure does not constitute a "money judgment recovered in a civil action," and thus statutory interest is not payable.
I.
In December 1986, Detroit police officers responded to a residential security alarm and entered the home of Nathaniel Wilson on Corbett Street on the suspicion that a burglary was in progress. The officers found no intruders, but they did find $167,480 in cash. Circumstances suggested that the money may have been related to drug trafficking. It was taken to the police station, and dogs trained to detect controlled substances indicated the presence of such scent on the currency.
The Wayne County Prosecutor brought a civil forfeiture action for the funds, as well as for $9,118 in cash that had been seized earlier from another house (on Chalmers Street) occupied by Wilson. Wilson defended and asked that the money be returned to him.
A bench trial followed, and the circuit court ordered the forfeiture. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the search of the house on Corbett had been illegal, and that forfeiture proceedings regarding the property seized from the house on Chalmers had not been properly instituted. However, we granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal, and reversed, holding that the entry and search of the Corbett residence without a warrant was lawful because it was supported by probable cause and occurred under exigent circumstances. We remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
On remand, the Court of Appeals again reversed the order of forfeiture, holding that the police had exceeded the scope of their authority by searching a trunk where most of the money was found. We denied leave to appeal.
Having prevailed in the forfeiture proceeding, Wilson brought a motion for return of the money, and asked for an award of statutory judgment interest. There was some delay because of liens filed by the United States government and the Michigan Department of Treasury. Following a hearing, the Wayne Circuit Court entered an order on February 25, 1997, requiring the city of Detroit to return the money involved in the forfeiture action, but denying Wilson's claim for statutory judgment interest.
Wilson filed a delayed application for leave to appeal, which the Court of Appeals granted. It then reversed, holding that the decree directing return of the funds was a money judgment in a civil action, entitling Wilson to interest under § 6013(1). It directed the circuit court to calculate the amount of interest, explaining that interest should not be awarded for those periods of delay in the forfeiture proceeding that were not attributable to the city.
The city of Detroit has filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court.
II.
Whether RJA § 6013 applies in the circumstances of this case is a question of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Brown v Michigan Health Care Corp, 463 Mich 368, 374; 617 NW2d 301 (2000); Sands Appliance Services, Inc v Wilson, 463 Mich 231, 238; 615 NW2d 241 (2000).
III.
RJA § 6013(1) provides that " nterest shall be allowed on a money judgment recovered in a civil action," as provided in that section. For the purpose of the judgment interest statute, a money jud
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|