Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons

Transcription

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, WESTERN DIVISION. vs. ONE 2003 GMC HUMMER H2.VIN No. 5GRGN23U63H , Seized from: Jimmie Dale Driskell., Date of Seizure: 01//12/04.CLAIMANT: GMAC. Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov

2 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY IN THE MATTER OF: DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, WESTERN DIVISION. DOCKET NO: J DOS CASE NO: C 8223 v. ONE 2003 GMC HUMMER H2. VIN No. 5GRGN23U63H Seized from: Jimmie Dale Driskell. Date of Seizure: 01//12/04. CLAIMANT: GMAC. I N I T I A L O R D E R THIS MATTER CAME TO BE HEARD, on proper notice, the 13 th day of February 2006 before W. Jay Reynolds, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, and sitting for the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety. Trey Phillips represented the Department. The Claimant, General Motors Acceptance Corporation ( GMAC ), was represented by Blair B. Evans of the Memphis Bar. This contested hearing was held in the Conference Room at the Tennessee Department of Safety, Legal Division West, 6174 Macon Road, Memphis, Tennessee The Technical Record was admitted without

3 objection and marked as collective Exhibit 1. The Notice of seizure and forfeiture and accompanying documents from the Collierville Police Department regarding the first seizure were marked as collective Exhibit 2 without objection. The Collierville Police seizure detail list was marked as Exhibit 3 ID. It was marked ID and admitted for identification purposes only because GMAC, having not seen the paper in response to discovery request, objected and was sustained. A GMAC summary was marked as Exhibit 4 without objection. Post hearing briefs were provided by the representatives. A transcript was not provided to the undersigned. ISSUE THE SUBJECT of this hearing is the proposed forfeiture of a 2003 General Motors Company Hummer H2. THE PROPERTY was seized from Jimmie Dale Driskell pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, et seq; et seq for Narcotics related violations. Jimmie Dale Driskell filed a timely claim, however, prior to the hearing, withdrew his claim by letter from his attorney. GMAC made claim, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated, and , as an innocent owner and secured party with a perfected security interest. Particularly in issue is the attachment of interest language at Tennessee Code Annotated, (f) (2) (A). 2

4 THE ISSUE is whether the interest of GMAC, as lien holder, should be forfeited the second time the Hummer is seized from GMAC customer, Jimmie Dale Driskell. Corollary issues include: when does GMAC lien holder interest attach; and whether second or subsequent seizures alter the statutory language of Tennessee Code Annotated, (f) (2) (A) providing for lien holder knowledge at the time the interest attached ; and whether GMAC looses the innocent lien holder status on the commission of the second illegal act; and does the burden of proof shift on proof of the commission of the illegal act or rather on the proof of the lien holder s knowledge of the illegal activity; and whether knowledge of the seizures must be actual or constructive to trigger the loss of innocent lien holder status. THE PARTIES STIPULATED the first and second seizures legally happened, that GMAC was given proper notice, and that GMAC filed proper and timely claims. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY 1. Captain Tommy McCaskill, Criminal Investigation Division of the Collierville Police Department, appeared on behalf of the Department. In August 2003 the Captain s duties included, among other things, handling forfeiture procedure, procedural documents, and record keeping for forfeitures, and negotiating seizure civil settlements. 3

5 2. Captain McCaskill testified GMAC was contacted regarding seizure of the Hummer because GMAC was identified as lien holder on the title and it was the customary practice of the Collierville Police Department to contact the lien holders when the vehicle seized provided security for a secured indebtedness. 3. A Proposed Civil Settlement Agreement and Release of Liability was negotiated, approved, and executed, by Captain McCaskill, on behalf of the seizing agency, and signed on November 7, Captain McCaskill further testified it is the practice of the Collierville Police Department to advise the lien holder that if the vehicle is seized again then the Collierville Police Department, nor Captain McCaskill, will enter into a second settlement but will customarily insist the matter go to hearing. 5 Captain McCaskill testified on cross examination GMAC was not copied and did not participate in the first seizure. 6. Detective Derek Mills, Shelby County Sheriff s Department Narcotics Division, appeared on behalf of the Department. On September 12, 2003 Detective Mills arrested Jimmie Dale Driskell for a separate Narcotics violations and seizure of a Chrysler. GMAC made no claim in the Chrysler matter and has no stake in this incident. The Department insists GMAC could have discovered this violation and inasmuch the proof should 4

6 be allowed, however, GMAC stringently objected on the legal basis of relevance. The objection was sustained based on application of the statutory standard found at Tennessee Code Annotated, (f) (1) (2). Whereupon, the Department moved for the testimony of Detective Mills to be made as an offer of proof. GMAC objected. The objection was overruled. A copy of the transcript was not provided to the undersigned and the testimony of Detective Mills did not factor in this decision. 7. Sergeant Richard Cox, Shelby County Sheriff s Department appeared for the Department. In September 2003 Sergeant Cox was a detective in the Shelby County Sheriffs department, Narcotics Division, negotiator for the assets forfeiture division. Offer of Proof was made for the testimony of Sergeant Cox as to the September 2003 events, supra paragraph 6. A copy of the transcript was not provided to the undersigned and the portion of testimony of Sergeant Richard Cox relating to the events regarding the Chrysler seizure did not factor in this decision. 8. A job duty of Sergeant Cox in August 2003 was to work with lien holders and advise them of seizure circumstances and procedures. Sergeant Cox testified GMAC had his direct phone line, as did many lien holders. Sergeant Richard Cox said he knew in January 2004 when the Hummer was admitted to the impound lot. Sergeant Cox did further 5

7 research and discovered this to be the second time the Hummer had been seized. Sergeant Cox did not specifically recall GMAC, or a GMAC representative, being notified of the activities of Jimmie Dale Driskell and/or the use of the Hummer. Nevertheless, Sergeant Cox began forfeitures procedures of the lien holder s interest. 9. Jeannine Vawter, GMAC contract audit representative, appeared for the Claimant, GMAC. Her duties as a contract employee of GMAC included managing the inventory sheets for several dealerships, checking and processing retail installment contracts, etc. She testified to not having any direct information regarding the Driskell case as a fact witness, rather her testimony was being offered as a GMAC records custodian. She described the random assignment of a customer to a GMAC representative when the customer applies for an extension of credit from GMAC. She stated customer information on the computer screen, or creditor account, generally does not reveal any criminal background, criminal charges, or criminal activity of the applicant. Accordingly, she advised that prior to the application process there is no indication GMAC knew, or should have known, the criminal history or illegal propensities of Jimmie Dale Driskell. 10. Review of the Driskell files by Ms. Vawter reveal GMAC was not involved in the settlement of the first seizure nor did they know of any other seizures of vehicles owned by Jimmie Driskell. Further, Ms. Vawter 6

8 says GMAC does not communicate with other Acceptance Companies regarding seizures and lists of customer seizures. Ms. Vawter stated the files indicate that GMAC was not informed Jimmie Driskell would use the vehicle for unlawful purposes. 11. On cross examination Ms. Vawter testified GMAC performs investigations and documentations on all seizures. Their efforts are on the car; particularly, the fair market value of the car, the balance remaining on the car, and how the customer is paying. GMAC places its focus on a business investigation rather than criminal activity. 12. GMAC instructs its representatives be very careful before defaulting a customer and reposing the automobile on suspicion of illegal activity on behalf of the customer. GMAC had a previous customer who was defaulted for illegal activity and later found not guilty. The customer subsequently brought suit against the company and prevailed. 13. At the time of purchase, the customer expressly agrees not to use the vehicle for illegal purposes. Further, Ms Vawter testified GMAC is conscientious and sensitive to discrimination and are reluctant to assume a customer is innocent until proven guilty by conviction. 14. Further, Ms Vawter said she reviewed the Driskell file and nothing therein gave any indication GMAC had any knowledge, 7

9 particularly at the time of entering the contract, that Mr. Driskell would use the vehicle for illegal purposes. 15. On re-cross, Ms. Vawter indicated the criminal conviction factor, supra, paragraph No 12, was a business decision consideration to analyze whether the contract was in default. The factor was not an expressed contractual provision. 16. Ms. Vawter indicated customer Jimmie Dale Drikell s payments were kept current until after the second seizure, whereupon the payments ceased, i.e. within sixty days under the terms and conditions of the contract. 17. Ms. Vawter reviewed the documents and stated no action had been taken against Jimmie Dale Driskell by GMAC for any reason, including, but not limited to, seizure. Particularly, there was no action for replevin after August 20, 2003 (i.e. the first seizure). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) financed the purchase of the subject 2003 Hummer H2 for Jimmie Dale Driskell on June 23, Driskell entered into a retail installment contract with GMAC who, by stipulation, is a perfected lien holder. 8

10 2. On August 20, 2003 the Collierville Police Department seized the subject Hummer for Narcotics violations. The Department, by stipulation, properly seized the vehicle. 3. GMAC was served Notice of Seizure on September 9, 2003 and timely filed claim as a perfected lien holder. GMAC, by stipulation, timely and properly filed a claim. 4. Jimmie Dale Driskell properly filed a claim for the vehicle. 5. GMAC did not obtain possession of the seized 2003 Hummer by Bond Out provisions pursuant to Department of Safety Rules, (7) and/or after the August 20, 2003 seizure. 6. The August 20, 2003 seizure resulted in a settlement between Jimmie Dale Driskell and the Department of Safety, whereby the vehicle was returned to Jimmie Dale Driskell from the Department of Safety. 7. GMAC was neither involved in the August 20, 2003 settlement negotiations, nor in the settlement. The lien holder, GMAC, first learned of the settlement on receipt of the Order of Compromise and Settlement from the Office of the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Safety. The Order of Compromise and Settlement was dated November 7,

11 8. Approximately two months after return of the vehicle to Driskell the Shelby County Sheriff s Department seized the subject Hummer for Narcotics violations, on January 12, The Department, by stipulation, properly seized the vehicle. 9. GMAC was served Notice of Seizure and timely filed a claim as a perfected lien holder. GMAC, by stipulation, timely and properly filed their claim. 10. Jimmie Dale Driskell timely and properly filed claim for the vehicle, but withdrew his claim with the advice of counsel. 11. GMAC is the sole bona fide lien holder of the subject vehicle. 12. GMAC did not obtain possession of the seized 2003 Hummer by Bond Out provisions pursuant to Department of Safety Rules, (7) and/or after the January 12, 2004 seizure. Possession and custody remain with the Department of Safety. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ANALYSIS The court considered the following legal authorities and precedents in making a determination and ruling in this cause: 1. Any vehicle which is used to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale or receipt of a controlled substance is subject to 10

12 forfeiture. Tennessee Code Annotated, (a) (4). By stipulation of the parties, there is no dispute Jimmie Dale Driskell used the subject Hummer to transport, or in some manner facilitate the transportation, sale or receipt of a controlled substance in violation of the Narcotics laws of the State of Tennessee and contrary to Department regulations. Jimmie Dale Driskell, after the second seizure, made claim and withdrew his claim for the subject Hummer. Logically, the interest of Jimmie Dale Driskell is forfeited. The issue becomes whether the interest is forfeited subject to the interest of the lien holder. 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, (a) (4) (D) provides A forfeiture of a conveyance encumbered by a bona fide security interest is subject to the interest of the secured party if the secured party neither had knowledge of nor consented to the act or omission; 3. Tennessee Code Annotated, states in part, (a) In order to forfeit any property or any person's interest in such property pursuant to , , , (k), (h), , , , , and , the state shall have the burden to prove by a preponderance of evidence that: (e) If the interest of the owner or co-owner of seized property is forfeited pursuant to this section but the interest of the secured party is not, the administrative head of the applicable agency may, at the request of the secured party, return the seized property for disposition in accordance with the security agreement or other contract. If the property is not returned to the secured party, the forfeiture shall be subject to the secured party's interest. (f) A secured party's interest may be forfeited if, from evidence presented at the hearing, the administrative head of the applicable agency finds that: 11

13 (1) The secured party is a co-conspirator to the activity making the property subject to forfeiture; (2) The secured party, at the time the interest attached, had actual knowledge of the intended illegal use of the property. A secured party who acquired an interest in the ordinary course of business shall be presumed to have no actual knowledge of an intended illegal use and shall have no duty to inquire as to the record or reputation of a borrower. (Emphasis added) Tennessee Code Annotated, provides (a)(1)(a) In all cases of seizure of any narcotic drugs or marijuana or any vehicle, aircraft or boat or other property subject to forfeiture under the provisions of this chapter, the officer or other person making the seizure shall deliver a receipt to the person, if any, found in possession of such property or conveyance. (B) The receipt shall state a general description of the seized property or conveyance, the reasons for the seizure, the procedure by which recovery of the property or conveyance may be sought, including the time period in which a claim for recovery must be presented, and the consequences of failing to file within the time period. (C) If the person found in possession of the conveyance is not the sole unencumbered owner of the conveyance, the department of safety shall make a reasonable effort to notify the owner or lienholder of the seizure by furnishing all parties known to have an interest in the conveyance with a copy of the receipt. (D) A copy of the receipt shall be filed in the office of the department of safety and shall be open to the public for inspection. (2) In all cases of seizure under the provisions of subdivision (a)(1) involving a commercial vehicle or common carrier, any cargo or products transported by such vehicle shall not be subject to forfeiture, unless such cargo or products are otherwise subject to forfeiture under this chapter, or any other law of this state or the federal government. Such cargo or products shall, upon request, immediately be made available for release to the owner or transporting agent. (b)(1) All such property seized and forfeited under the provisions of this chapter shall be sold at public sale by the commissioner of general services when seized by an agency of the state or, if seized by a county or municipality, by the seizing agency of the county or municipality when the seized and forfeited property has been released by the commissioner of safety as now authorized by law. (2)(A) However, any vehicle, seized by an agency of the state, and forfeited 12

14 under the provisions of this chapter may, with the permission of the commissioner of safety and under such terms and conditions as are approved by the commissioner of safety, be used, for a period of time not to exceed one (1) year, in the drug enforcement program of the state. (B) No such vehicle shall be used in the county or municipality in which it was seized. (C) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (b)(2)(b) to the contrary, any vehicle seized by a county or municipal agency and forfeited under the provisions of title 40, chapter 33, part 2, may be used in the local drug enforcement program for a period not to exceed five (5) years. (c)(1) Any person claiming any property seized as contraband goods may, within thirty (30) days after receipt of notification of seizure, file with the commissioner at Nashville a claim in writing, requesting a hearing and stating such person's interest in the articles seized. (2) Any such claimant shall also file with the claimant's claim a cost bond with one (1) or more good and solvent sureties in the sum of two hundred fifty dollars ($250), such bond being made payable to the state of Tennessee. (3) An indigent person may file the claim in forma pauperis by filing with the claim an affidavit stating that the indigent person is unable to bear the cost of the proceeding. (d)(1)(a) Within thirty (30) days from the day the claim is filed, the commissioner shall establish a hearing date and set the case on the docket. (B) Nothing in this subsection (d) shall be construed as requiring the hearing to be conducted within the thirty-day period. (2) At each hearing, the state shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was of a nature making its possession illegal or was used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture under the provisions of this chapter, and failure to carry the burden of proof shall operate as a bar to any forfeiture under this chapter. (e)(1) If the ruling of the commissioner is favorable to the claimant, the commissioner shall deliver to the claimant the vehicle and any other property seized that is not contraband, and the claimant shall not be required to pay any of the expenses incurred in the storage, transportation, and impoundment of such seized property. 13

15 (2) If the ruling of the commissioner is adverse to the claimant, the commissioner shall proceed to sell or dispose of the contraband goods in accordance with the provisions of this section and the expenses incurred in the storage, transportation and impoundment, of the property shall be adjudged as part of the cost of the proceeding in any manner the commissioner shall determine. (f)(1) Whenever, in any proceeding under this section, a claim is filed for any property seized, as provided in this section, by an owner or other person asserting the interest of the owner, the commissioner shall not allow the claim unless and until the claimant proves that the claimant: (A) Has an interest in the property, which the claimant acquired in good faith; and (B) Had at no time any knowledge or reason to believe that it was being or would be used in violation of the laws of the United States or of the state of Tennessee relating to narcotic drugs or marijuana. (2) Whenever, in any proceeding under this section, a claim is filed for any property seized, as provided in this section, by a person who is the holder of a security interest or other claim arising out of a contract or agreement, the commissioner shall not allow the claim unless and until the claimant proves that the claimant has an interest in such property, which the claimant acquired in good faith. An interest that is acquired in the ordinary course of business shall be presumed to be in good faith unless the commissioner receives evidence that the holder of the security interest had knowledge, at the time the interest attached, of the intended illegal use of the vehicle or was a co-conspirator in furtherance of the illegal activity. A holder of a security interest that is other than a natural person shall be considered a co-conspirator for purposes of this section, if evidence shows that an officer, employee or agent of the holder acting within the scope of employment is a co-conspirator, and the holder either: (A) Has actual knowledge of the illegal activities of the officer, employee or agent from an individual other than the officer, employee or agent and fails to take appropriate action; or (B) Has failed to reasonably supervise or monitor the activities of the holder's officer, employee or agent. (3) In the event the interest of the owner is forfeited, as provided in subdivision (f)(1), and the interest of the holder of a security interest is not forfeited as provided in subdivision (f)(2), the commissioner may, at the request of the holder of such interest, return the property to the holder for disposition in accordance with the applicable security agreement or other contract. If the commissioner does not return the property to the holder, the forfeiture shall be subject to the holder's interest. 14

16 (g) Pending any proceeding to recover a vehicle, aircraft or boat seized under this chapter, the commissioner may order delivery of the vehicle, aircraft or boat to any claimant who shall establish such claimant's right to immediate possession of the vehicle, aircraft or boat, and who shall execute, with one (1) or more sureties approved by the commissioner, and deliver to the commissioner, a bond in favor of the state of Tennessee and for the payment of the NADA retail value of the vehicle, aircraft or boat as of the time of the hearing, and conditioned further that, if the vehicle, aircraft or boat is not returned at the time of hearing, the bond shall stand in lieu of and be forfeited in the same manner as the vehicle, aircraft or boat. (h)(1) The commissioner, in the commissioner's discretion, is hereby authorized to appoint or designate a hearing officer to sit, and set such case on the docket, as such hearing officer at the request and in the absence of the commissioner for the purpose of conducting such hearing as the commissioner may deem necessary. (2) The hearing officer designated by the commissioner shall make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation for the issuance of the proposed order based on the findings, conclusions and recommendations. (3) If the commissioner concurs, the commissioner shall issue the order, or the commissioner may, upon review of the record, make such findings, conclusions, and issue such order as, in the commissioner's discretion, the record justifies. (4) The commissioner, personally, may hold such hearings as the commissioner may deem proper. (5) The hearing officer is likewise empowered to subpoena witnesses and compel their attendance and the production of records, memoranda, papers and other documents at any hearing authorized under this section. (i)(1) At all hearings provided for in this section, the commissioner or the hearing officer shall provide a stenographer or court reporter to take a stenographic record of the evidence adduced at the hearing. 15

17 (2) The claimant shall be entitled to a copy of the stenographic record, upon application for a copy, and upon paying the reasonable costs of the copy to be fixed by the commissioner. (j) The commissioner may make or publish, such other and further procedural rules and regulations, not inconsistent with this section, as the commissioner deems proper, governing any hearing provided for in this section. (k) If a law enforcement agency seizes a motor vehicle as the result of a violation of the drug control law, the agency may elect whether to go forward with the forfeiture proceeding through either an administrative agency or through a court having civil jurisdiction in the county where the seizure occurred. It appears indisputable that GMAC was a secured party, with a perfected interest acquired in the ordinary course of business, on 23 June 2003 (i.e. the purchase date). Additionally, it is indisputable GMAC was entitled to the good faith presumption the first time the Hummer was seized on August 20, It appears there is consensus to 23 June 2003 being the time the interest attached as contemplated by (f) (2). GMAC did acquire a security interest in the vehicle when Driskell financed the Hummer H2 with GMAC. The retail sales contract and the Title evidence the interest of GMAC. GMAC contends Motor vehicles are goods for purposes of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the UCC applies to transactions to create a security interest in automobiles. Tennessee Code Annotated (44). Presumptively, this automobile is a consumer good for purposes of GMAC activities. Tennessee Code Annotated, (44). The UCC defines a security interest as an 16

18 interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation. Tennessee Code Annotated, (38) (A). A security interest is only enforceable if it has attached. Tennessee Code Annotated, A security interest attaches to collateral when it becomes enforceable against the debtor with respect to the collateral, unless an agreement expressly postpones the time of attachment. Id. There are three requirements for attachment of a security interest: (1) the parties must have an agreement that the security interest attach; (2) value must be given by the secured party; and (3) the debtor must have rights in the collateral. Tennessee Code Annotated, (1) (b). Attachment occurs when these three requirements coexist. Tennessee Code Annotated, The first requirement was met when the parties, i.e. Driskell and GMAC, agreed the security interest attached as signatures were affixed on the contracts 23 June The delivery of the vehicle from GMAC to Driskell served as the value given by the secured party (Here, GMAC) thus meeting the second requirement for attachment. Debtor Driskell s ownership interest and use of the vehicle qualifies as the debtor s rights in collateral to satisfy the coexisting requirements. Attachment establishes a secured party s rights to the collateral. To acquire maximum priority a secured creditor (GMAC) must perfect. Compliance with the motor vehicle title and registration statutes is the exclusive method for perfecting a security interest in an automobile. Tennessee Code Annotated, (b). Security interest in a motor vehicle is perfected by notation on the vehicle s certificate of title. Id. GMAC s security interest was noted on the vehicle s certificate 17

19 of title on July 3, 2003, and therefore the security interest was perfected on that date. Therefore, at the time the interest attached GMAC had no knowledge, actual or constructive, of the use of the vehicle to further illegal activity. Since the security interest attached on June 23, 2003 GMAC lacked knowledge of the intended illegal activity on August 20, 2003 within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated Under the statute, a secured party who acquired interest in the ordinary course of business shall be presumed to have no actual knowledge of an intended illegal use and shall have no duty to inquire as to the record or reputation of the borrower. Id. GMAC extended credit in the ordinary course of business and therefore had no knowledge and did not consent, impliedly or actually, to the illegal activities of Driskell. Therefore, GMAC is entitled to the presumption it lacked knowledge of the illegal use regarding the use of the vehicle. Additionally, GMAC had no duty to inquire into Driskell s reputation or record. The general rule is since forfeitures are not favored... they will not be given effect to, except by the express terms of a statute, and where the facts which purport to require such action come clearly and plainly within the provisions of the law. 37 C.J.S. Forfeitures 5 (a). The unambiguous language of Tennessee Code Annotated does not permit the forfeiture of GMAC s interest in the vehicle based on the theory of constructive knowledge of illegal use after the date of attachment of the security interest. In conclusion, GMAC is entitled to its bona fide, perfected security interest in the vehicle as it did not consent, actually or constructively, to any improper use of the automobile, and it did not have any actual knowledge of the illegal use of the 18

20 vehicle at the time the security interest attached (the statutory standard). Accordingly, GMAC had no duty to inquire as to the record or the reputation of Driskell because it acquired its interest in the ordinary course of business. At the hearing the Department had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was of such a nature making its possession illegal or was used in a manner making it subject to forfeiture... unless the commissioner receives knowledge the holder of the security interest had knowledge, at the time the interest attached, of the intended illegal use of the vehicle or was a co-conspirator in furtherance of the illegal activity. In accordance with the foregoing, the Department failed to carry the burden of proof which operates as a bar to forfeiture and the property should be returned immediately to claimant, GMAC, Tennessee Code Annotated (b) (1). DECISION IT IS THE DECISION of the Administrative Judge the Hummer H2 should be immediately returned to the Claimant GMAC. ORDERED AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, W. JAY REYNOLDS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FILED in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State, this 15th day of May, CHARLES C. SULLIVAN, II, DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIVISION 19

21 20