Legal Opinion
In re Forfeiture of $176,598
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided September 25, 2001No. Docket No. 117689PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Per curiam
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…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Degen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Phinney v. PerlmutterMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
- Sands Appliance Services, Inc v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- United States v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, Brian J. Degen and Karyn Degen, Claimants-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- In Re Forfeiture of $176,598Michigan Supreme Court · 1993
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Angott v. Chubb Group of Insurance CompaniesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
- People Ex Rel. Wayne County Prosecutor v. $176,598.00 US CurrencyMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
- Proudfoot v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
- In re Forfeiture of 1987 MercuryMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
- Griswold Properties, LLC v. Lexington InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.