Mr. Briles did not file a complaint within 60 days.

In addition, the local county attorney sent a letter to Mr. Briles' insurer, notifying the carrier of the forfeiture. The letter asserted a right to any insurance proceeds for the vehicle and asked the insurer to delay the disbursement of those proceeds until the forfeiture was completed.

Mr. Briles was not provided a copy of the letter to the insurer and the county did not otherwise notify him of the county's intention to seek forfeiture of the insurance proceeds.

Mr. Briles did not learn of the letter to his insurance company until after the 60-day deadline in Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(e) had passed.

When he learned of the letter, Mr. Briles filed a complaint for judicial determination under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8, challenging the county's forfeiture of both the vehicle and the insurance proceeds.

The trial court dismissed Mr. Briles' complaint. The court concluded that because insurance proceeds were part of all "right, title, and interest" in a vehicle, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 3, Mr. Briles had received proper notice of the forfeiture of the insurance proceeds in the letter he had received from the police. Given that Mr. Briles had filed his complaint more than 60 days after he had received that notice, the trial court held that his complaint was untimely and the trial court had no jurisdiction over it.

Mr. Briles appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint as untimely. The court of appeals, however, concluded that insurance proceeds were not part of all "right, title, and interest" in a vehicle and, therefore, that they were not subject to forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63.

The dispute reached the Minnesota Supreme Court. There, the county argued that the insurance proceeds on Mr. Briles' vehicle as well as the vehicle itself were subject to forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63. Mr. Briles disagreed.

Minnesota Law

Under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(a), vehicles used in the commission of a:

designated offense

, including second-degree driving while impaired, are subject to forfeiture. By operation of the forfeiture statute,

[a]ll right, title, and interest in a vehicle subject to forfeiture . . . vests in the appropriate agency upon commission of the conduct resulting in the designated offense.

Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 3.

The Minnesota Supreme Court's Decision

The court affirmed.

In its decision, the court first ruled that Mr. Briles' complaint, filed more than 60 days after he had received the letter from the police, was untimely and that the trial court had properly dismissed his complaint insofar as it challenged the forfeiture of his vehicle.

The court then decided that Mr. Briles' challenge to the forfeiture of the insurance proceeds payable under his insurance policy could proceed because insurance proceeds payable on a vehicle subject to forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 were not part of the owner's "right, title, and interest" in the vehicle.

In the court's view, insurance proceeds that flowed from an insurance policy that covered a vehicle subject to forfeiture were "not an interest in that vehicle" but were "payments due under an insurance contract." The court added that an insurance contract was "not an interest in a vehicle" but was "a contract about a vehicle."

In other words, the court said, the right to receive payments on an insurance contract arose not from the vehicle itself, but from the contract the insured had with the insurance company. Insurance proceeds therefore, were not an "interest in a vehicle" under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 3, and the notice Mr. Briles had received did not include those proceeds, the court held.

It concluded that because insurance proceeds were not subject to forfeiture as part of the "right, title, and interest" in Mr. Briles's vehicle, whether such proceeds were forfeitable was not properly litigated within the confines of Section 169A.63.

The case is Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, No. A16-0768 (Minn. Feb. 14, 2018). Attorneys involved include: James M. Ventura, Wayzata, Minnesota, for respondent/cross-appellant; Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, First Assistant County Attorney, Shakopee, Minnesota, for Appellant/cross-respondent; Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Americans for Forfeiture Reform; Daniel J. Koewler, Ramsay Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Learn more: Assets Forfeitable for Impaired Driving Did Not Include Insurance Proceeds, Minnesota Appeals Court Rules