My question involves court procedures for the state of: Michigan
I provided some background in another post, but the short version of the background is that at trial in July 2015 I was the claimant as an innocent owner in a vehicle forfeiture case. I did have an attorney, and he has continued to be helpful, because the trial was covered through a legal benefit I have through work, but post-judgment motions are not so I am handling those pro se.
Last Friday I happened to read a news article in my news feed that in October 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case in which by 2-1 the court ruled a vehicle could not be forfeited in a case where "mere possession" is the only claim by which a vehicle is attempting to be ruled forfeited. (The dissent did not dispute this assertion, rather the dissenting opinion questioned whether the defendant was truly merely possessing, and was by a preponderance of evidence actually using the vehicle with intent to receive which would be valid for forfeiture).
The law covering forfeiture in this case is MCL 333.7521 and the Court Procedure I was told I could use would seem to be MCR 2.612. The CoA case is People of Michigan v. 2007 Ford Focus CoA Case number 321640
For convenience, MCR 2.612 (C) 1 states:
(1) On motion and on just terms, the court may relieve a party or the legal representative of a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding on the following grounds:
(a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(b) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under MCR 2.611(B).
(c) Fraud (intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.
(d) The judgment is void.
(e) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.
(f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
I'm a little fuzzy as to which subsection(s) I should cite or which are applicable... this would be new case law, but it's not really new evidence - or is it? Or does the case law mean "it is no longer equitable, etc." or is it a mistake?
I know that it's improbable I'd prevail, and I'm more likely to have to attempt an appeal by leave, but that's an avenue I'd like to avoid if possible because my car has been sitting in impound for 16 months and is deteriorating (busted windshield, stolen hubcaps, who knows what else since I can't inspect except what I can see through the fence)
I provided some background in another post, but the short version of the background is that at trial in July 2015 I was the claimant as an innocent owner in a vehicle forfeiture case. I did have an attorney, and he has continued to be helpful, because the trial was covered through a legal benefit I have through work, but post-judgment motions are not so I am handling those pro se.
Last Friday I happened to read a news article in my news feed that in October 2015, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided a case in which by 2-1 the court ruled a vehicle could not be forfeited in a case where "mere possession" is the only claim by which a vehicle is attempting to be ruled forfeited. (The dissent did not dispute this assertion, rather the dissenting opinion questioned whether the defendant was truly merely possessing, and was by a preponderance of evidence actually using the vehicle with intent to receive which would be valid for forfeiture).
The law covering forfeiture in this case is MCL 333.7521 and the Court Procedure I was told I could use would seem to be MCR 2.612. The CoA case is People of Michigan v. 2007 Ford Focus CoA Case number 321640
For convenience, MCR 2.612 (C) 1 states:
Quote:
(1) On motion and on just terms, the court may relieve a party or the legal representative of a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding on the following grounds:
(a) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
(b) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under MCR 2.611(B).
(c) Fraud (intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.
(d) The judgment is void.
(e) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.
(f) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
I know that it's improbable I'd prevail, and I'm more likely to have to attempt an appeal by leave, but that's an avenue I'd like to avoid if possible because my car has been sitting in impound for 16 months and is deteriorating (busted windshield, stolen hubcaps, who knows what else since I can't inspect except what I can see through the fence)
Motions: How to Use a New Appellate Case for Filing a Motion for Relief from Judgment
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire