$27,920.00 in U.S. Currency v. State

Citations: 37 S.W.3d 533; 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 900; 2001 WL 101747Docket: No. 06-00-00069-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 7, 2001; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

David Yingling appealed the trial court’s denial of his Motion to Return Funds following the seizure of $27,920 from a vehicle he owned, which was driven by James Tosh Keele. During a police stop, $5,900 was found on Keele and $22,020 in the vehicle, which was subsequently seized under the allegation that the money was contraband linked to drug-related felonies. The State filed a Notice of Seizure but only served Keele, not Yingling. An agreed judgment was reached where Keele received the smaller amount, while the State retained the larger sum.

Nearly a year later, Yingling filed his motion, claiming ownership of the SUV and the seized funds, asserting he had not been notified of the seizure proceedings. At the hearing, he stated he purchased the SUV at auction and speculated the money was present when he bought it, although he acknowledged it could have been placed there by Keele or a passenger. The trial court denied his motion, finding he had not demonstrated a legal interest in the funds and that the State had complied with the forfeiture statute. Yingling argued the trial court erred in denying his motion, ruling on his lack of interest, and affirming the State’s compliance with the forfeiture statute.

The opinion highlights that the forfeiture of property requires the State to prove a substantial connection between the property and illegal activity, demonstrating that the money was derived from or intended for drug-related use. This proof can be circumstantial but must exceed mere suspicion regarding the money's source.

The initial court proceeding against Tosh Keele did not establish him as the owner of the contested money or result in its forfeiture as contraband. An agreed judgment allowed the State of Texas to retain $22,020 found in the S.U.V., while Keele kept the remaining cash found on his person. This judgment clarified that it was not a formal forfeiture under the law, despite Article 59.05 requiring compliance with civil pleadings and trial procedures. 

Yingling, the vehicle's owner, initiated an action to reclaim the money but had not received citation or notice regarding Keele's proceeding. However, his court motion constituted an appearance, waiving the need for service of process under Rule 121 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Yingling’s participation indicated he was subject to the court's jurisdiction. The trial court found that Yingling did not properly pursue a bill of review, which typically allows parties affected by a judgment to challenge it, though it can also extend to those with existing interests impacted by the judgment.

Despite Yingling’s motion being potentially misclassified, under Rule 71, it could still be treated as a bill of review. However, for any judgment to bind Yingling, he needed to prove he was the true owner or had a vested interest in the property. Texas law mandates service of process to property owners and interest holders in forfeiture actions, and without proper service, any judgment against Yingling could not be enforced. Ultimately, Yingling bore the burden to demonstrate his ownership rights in the forfeited property.

Yingling was found by the trial court to lack a legal interest in the money involved in the case and to be unaware of its presence in the vehicle when he released it to Keele. The court’s findings were reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency. A legal sufficiency challenge requires demonstrating that evidence conclusively supports all vital facts of the issue, focusing solely on supportive evidence. Yingling admitted ignorance of the money's presence in the SUV, and the possibility that it was placed there by Keele or a passenger, thereby providing legal grounds for the court's finding. The factual sufficiency review entails assessing whether the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence; however, the trial court was unconvinced by Yingling's speculative claims regarding his ownership of the money. The court concluded that Yingling failed to prove his ownership claim and noted that the State of Texas did not satisfy the forfeiture statute requirements to establish the property as contraband, nor was there a judgment of forfeiture as mandated by Texas law. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of Yingling's Motion to Return Funds, emphasizing that the forfeiture proceeding could be in rem if the property owner is unknown and must comply with citation by publication requirements.