Case ID: or-app_104/html/0654-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted April 2,
    appeal dismissed December 12, 1990
    MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. $6,381 in U. S. CURRENCY; $100 in U. S. Currency; one Polaroid Camera; one RCA video camera; one 1986 Chevrolet Camaro, Or Lic #FWX147, Vin #1G1FP87F7G113579; one 1979 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Or Lic #LRI839, Vin #1237A92405101; and one 1979 Ford Mustang, Or Lic #KVL636, Vin #9R02Y18797, Defendants, and Armando CASTRO, Appellant.
    
    ([ AXXXX-XXXXX ]; CA A60621)
    802 P2d 705
    Clayton C. Patrick, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Richard L. Cowan, Salem.
    Michael D. Schrunk, District Attorney for Multnomah County, and Jennifer J. Martin, Deputy District Attorney for Multnomah County, Portland, filed the brief for respondent.
    
      Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Appellant appeals from a default judgment entered in this forfeiture proceeding pursuant to Multnomah County Code 7.85 et seq, whereby the trial court ordered a forfeiture of property allegedly used to facilitate or engage in the crime of possession or delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant claims that he is the owner of the forfeited property. He filed a motion to set aside the judgment, an amended motion to set aside the judgment, a motion for reconsideration and an additional motion to set aside the judgment, all of which the trial court denied.

We agree with Multnomah County’s assertion that appellant does not have standing to appeal. He was not given notice of the forfeiture proceeding, and he was not named in the complaint or in the judgment. He did not seek to intervene, even though he was aware that a forfeiture proceeding was pending. Because he is not a party to the judgment, and the judgment does not adjudicate his interest in the property, he has no right to appeal from it. ORS 19.020; Dennison v. Doreen, 281 Or 89, 573 P2d 1242 (1978).

Appeal dismissed.