Opinion ID: 2582220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Conflicting Provisions Within the KSASFA

Text: BIDS further argues that applying an interest holder requirement to K.S.A. 60-4106(a)(5)(A) would defeat the statute's provisions and legislative intent allowing attorney fees to be taken from seized assets and would also conflict with other provisions in the KSASFA. These contentions have no merit. BIDS points out, for example, that K.S.A. 60-4112(e) provides that a person charged with a criminal offense may apply at any time before final judgment to the court where the forfeiture proceeding is pending for the release of property seized for forfeiture, that is necessary for the defense of the person's criminal charge. BIDS argues that it makes little sense to apply an interest holder requirement to an attorney attempting to gain access to seized funds under K.S.A. 60-4106(a)(5)(A) but then apply no such requirement to an attorney receiving funds through the criminal defendant's application pursuant to K.S.A. 60-4112(e) (criminal defendant may apply for release of seized property to pay for defense attorney fees). As noted above, an attorney in possession of funds for attorney fees under the KSASFA qualifies as an interest holder and may file a claim in the forfeiture proceeding. K.S.A. 60-4112(c) provides that [i]f property is seized for forfeiture . . . the court, on an application filed by an owner or interest holder in the property. . . may issue an order to show cause to the seizing agency, for a hearing on the sole issue of whether probable cause for forfeiture of the property then exists. (Emphasis added.) Also, the Act provides that the criminal defendant or the one from whom the property has been seized may fille a claim in the forfeiture proceeding. K.S.A. 60-4112(e). K.S.A. 60-4112(e) does not blindly mandate that, upon the defendant's application, the court must release the seized property. Instead, the district court must hold a probable cause hearing if the defendant/owner is first able to establish several factors set out by the statute. The same is true for an attorney in possession of funds acquired. In this way, the KSASFA makes perfect sense in that before any funds are transferred to or kept by an attorney under the exemption, the district court in the forfeiture first must assure itself that the statutory provisions have been satisfied. The district court's application of the owner/interest holder requirement to 60-4106(a)(5)(A) does not conflict with other provisions of the KSASFA or with the legislature's intent to provide attorney fees out of seized property.