Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Property Seized From Bill Talley of UniteBlue

Property Seized From Bill Talley of UniteBlue

Ratings: (0)|Views: 129|Likes:
Published by UniteBlueDocuments
Property siezed that William G. Talley of UniteBlue tried to get back. Siezed because of criminal charges and liens.
Property siezed that William G. Talley of UniteBlue tried to get back. Siezed because of criminal charges and liens.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: UniteBlueDocuments on Apr 06, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY v. AllProperty Listed in Appeals Division Order of Compromise & Selement, entered September 7,2007, Seized From: William G. Talley, Date of Seizure: 8/16/05 & 8/17/05, Claimant: WilliamG. Talley, Lienholder: None Filed Seizing Agency:Metro Nashville P.D.
Follow this and additional works at:hp://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_lawopinionsPart of the Administrative Law Commons
is Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document madeavailable by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about thispublic document, please contactadministrative.procedures@tn.gov 
 
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETYIN THE MATTER OF:
 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OFSAFETY
v.All Property Listed in Appeals DivisionOrder of Compromise & Settlement,entered September 7, 2007Seized From: William G. TalleyDate of Seizure: 8/16/05 & 8/17/05Claimant: William G. TalleyLienholder: None FiledSeizing Agency: Metro Nashville P.D.DOCKET NO: 19.01-101790J(D.O.S. #E5053 & E5054)INITIAL ORDER OF DEFAULT & DISMISSAL OF CLAIM
 This matter was heard in Nashville, Tennessee on April 21, 2009, before J.Randall LaFevor, Administrative Judge assigned by the Secretary of State,Administrative Procedures Division, sitting for the Commissioner of the TennesseeDepartment of Safety. Ms. Cynthia Gross, Metropolitan Attorney, represented theSeizing Agency. The Claimant was not present, either in person or through legal counsel. The subject of this hearing was the proposed forfeiture of the subject propertybased on allegations that its possession and/or use was in violation of the Tennessee DrugControl Act. (TCA §§ 53-11-201 & 40-33-201
et seq.
) Upon the Claimant’s failure toappear at the hearing, counsel for the State made an oral motion for an order finding theClaimant to be in default, pursuant to TCA § 4-5-309. Upon full consideration of theevidence received at the hearing and the entire record in this case, the States motion wasgranted. The Claimant was found to be in default, and the claim filed in this matter wasstricken, as supported by the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
 
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Claimant’s property was seized pursuant to law, resulting in the issuance of aProperty Forfeiture Warrant. The Claimant filed a claim seeking the return of thevehicle, and requesting that a hearing be scheduled to consider that claim.2. The parties negotiated an agreement to return the property to the Claimant uponpayment of an agreed-upon sum by a specified date. The Claimant failed to comply withthe terms of that agreement. In the event of such a failure, the agreement provides forforfeiture of the property to the seizing agency.3. A show-cause hearing was scheduled for the Claimant to demonstrate why theforfeiture provision of the agreement should not be put into effect. The State sent noticeof the hearing time and location to the Claimant and to his attorney by certified mail.
1
 4. Neither the Claimant nor his attorney appeared for the hearing. Based on theClaimant’s failure to appear, the State made an oral motion for the entry of an Order of Default.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and ANALYSIS
1. Tennessee Code Annotated § 4-5-309(a) provides that “if a party fails to attend orparticipate in a pre-hearing conference, hearing or other stage of a contested case, theadministrative judge . . . may hold the party in default . . . An order holding an absentparty in default at the
second
setting of a forfeiture hearing is authorized by Rule 1340-2-2-.17(1)(a), T
ENN
. C
OMP
. R. & R
EGS
.,
Rules of Procedure for Asset Forfeiture Hearings
.2. Department of Safety Regulations governing asset forfeiture hearings alsoprovide:(d) No default shall be entered against a claimant for failure to attend[the hearing] except upon proof by the filing of the return receipt card, thatthe legal division has given notice of the hearing per Rule 1340-2-2-.11(3).
1
See, Hearing Exhibit #1.
2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->