Dept. of Pub. Safety v. Buckley, 2006-L-101 (9-7-2007)

{¶ 28} The sole issue in this appeal is which party is the "owner" of the money in question that was seized. Since appellants were no longer "owners" of the money seized at the time of the raid, they neither had "an unconditional right to intervene" conferred by statute, nor could they "claim[ ] an interest relating to the property * * * that is subject of the action * * *." Civ.R. 24(A) (Emphasis added). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

{¶ 29} In their motion, appellants alleged that "the sum of $14,445 was taken from the event," and stated that it "belonged to the participants," because…