|
|
|
The Client is not Punished for his Attorney’s "Excusable Neglect"
(December 2011) By Gregory L. Arbogast, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
U.S. v. $12,914.00,
Case No.: ELH-11-01912 (D. Md. December 2, 2011) | View pdf
The attorney in this case failed
to comply with the strict time limit of filing an Answer in a forfeiture
proceeding, but the attorney fell on his sword, or at least the penknife, asking
the Court for mercy, and his client was forgiven. Ordinarily, the Rules for
Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Rules”) are to be
strictly construed. In this case, however, where the attorney missed a deadline,
through no fault of the client, the Court permitted a tardy filing.
U.S. v. $12,914.00 is an asset forfeiture case in which the
Government seized $12,914.00 in funds in accordance with the Controlled
Dangerous Substances Act. After the seizure, Jackie Weatherly (“Claimant”), by
and through her attorney, filed a verified claim asserting an ownership interest
in the funds. The Government filed a Motion to Strike the Claim and asserted
that the Claimant failed to file an Answer within 21 days, as required by the
Rules.
In response to the Government’s motion, Claimant filed
an Answer. The Government again filed a Motion to Strike because Claimant’s
Answer was filed outside of the 21 days permitted by the Rules. Claimant’s
attorney opposed the second Motion to Strike and explained that he drafted
the Answer, but misplaced it in his office. He thought that the Answer was
filed. As soon as he realized the Answer was not filed-which occurred when
he received the Government’s Motion to Strike- he filed the Answer.
Claimant’s attorney asked the Court not to punish his client for his own
mistake.
The Court analyzed whether it should permit Claimant to
file an Answer outside of the 21-day window permitted by the Rules. The
Court noted that the Rules are generally strictly enforced in forfeiture
proceedings. Judge Hollander, however, also conceded that the substantively
important filing is the verified claim, not the Answer. The verified claim
is a sworn statement asserting an ownership interest in the forfeited
property, while the Answer is merely a denial of the allegations and an
assertion of defenses. Therefore, Judge Hollander found that Claimant’s
mistake was one of procedure, not of substance.
The Court next considered whether the attorney’s
mistake was “excusable neglect,” such that she should make an exception to
the Rules and permit the tardy filing. In making this assessment, Judge
Hollander found that the Government did not face a “hint” of prejudice. The
mistake did not unduly delay the proceedings or place the Government at a
disadvantage. Therefore, Judge Hollander found the attorney’s mistake to be
“excusable neglect,” and she permitted Claimant to file the Answer after the
deadline to do so.
|
|
|
Top
