Court Opinion

ID: 9658657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:07:27.261873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:57.568578
License: Public Domain

*166OPINION
HARTEN, Judge.
Appellant city challenges the district court’s order granting summary judgment to respondent in a judicial forfeiture proceeding. Because we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction, we reverse and remand for dismissal.
FACTS
On 20 March 2002, respondent John Garde was arrested and charged with first-degree driving while impaired (DWI). That same day, the state seized respondent’s vehicle, a 1992 Ford Explorer, and served respondent with a notice of seizure and intent to forfeit vehicle. On 18 April 2002, respondent filed a demand for judicial determination of forfeiture in the district court. It is undisputed that he never served the demand for judicial review on appellant City of Richfield, the prosecuting authority with jurisdiction over the forfeiture. Respondent later pleaded guilty to second-degree DWI.
Appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because respondent failed to satisfy the requirements of Minn.Stat. § 169A.68, subd. 8(d) (2000), when demanding judicial review. The district court denied appellant’s motion and sua sponte entered judgment for respondent, concluding that respondent was not convicted of a designated offense under the vehicle forfeiture statute. This appeal follows.
ISSUE1
Did respondent’s failure to comply strictly with Minn.Stat. § 169A.68, subd. 8(d) (2000), deprive the district court of jurisdiction?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction because respondent failed to serve his demand for judicial determination of forfeiture as required by Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(d) (2000). Whether a district court has jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review. Strange v. 1997 Jeep Cherokee, 597 N.W.2d 355, 357 (Minn.App.1999).
Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8, provides:
(d) Within 30 days following service of a notice of seizure and forfeiture under this subdivision, a claimant may file a demand for judicial determination of the forfeiture. The demand must be in the form of a civil complaint and must be filed with the court administrator in the county in which the seizure occurred, together with proof of service of a copy of the complaint on the prosecuting authority having jurisdiction over the forfeiture * * *.
(e) * * * [A]n action for the return of a vehicle seized under this section may not be maintained by * * * any person who has been served with a notice of seizure and forfeiture unless the person has complied with this subdivision.
When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, we must apply its plain language. Amaral v. Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N.W.2d 379, 384 (Minn.1999).
The plain language of the statute provides that a claimant “may not” maintain an action for judicial determination of forfeiture without complying with the statutory requirements. Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(e). One requirement is that a claimant’s demand for judicial re*167view be filed with proof of service on the prosecuting authority. Id., subd. 8(d). Respondent does not dispute the district court’s finding that he never served his demand on appellant. Therefore, he could not have filed proof of service when he filed his demand with the district court. Because respondent failed to comply with the statute, he may not maintain his action for judicial determination of forfeiture. Id., subd. 8(e). Accordingly, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding and should have dismissed the action. We reverse and remand to the district with instructions to dismiss this judicial forfeiture action.
DECISION
Because respondent did not comply strictly with the service requirements of Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8 (2000), when he failed to file service of process with his demand for judicial determination of forfeiture, the district court did not have jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceeding.
Reversed and remanded.

. Because we conclude that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we do not address the other issue pertaining to the "designated offense” under the forfeiture statute.