A Family's Homestead Rights Overcome Drug Forfeiture Laws

21/ “HOMESTEAD RIGHTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN DRUG FORFEITURES”:  When a person is convicted of certain crimes, state law allows the court to order the forfeiture of the convict’s property if it was used in the crime or was a fruit of the crime. The court often orders that many of the proceeds of the sale of these assets often go to the budgets of the prosecutors and law enforcement agencies involved in the seizure.

That law conflicted with a set of Minnesota’s oldest laws which prohibit the seizure of a family’s homestead to pay any obligation.  This protection stretches back to territorial days and has always been in the Minnesota Constitution.  Under current law, this homestead shield protects up to 160 acres and a value up to $300,000.

Kent Feigum and Luverne Johnson pleaded guilty to drug felonies in Renville and Yellow Medicine counties.  The district courts ordered the forfeiture of their homesteads.  The Court of Appeals reversed those decisions because the homestead shield barred the seizure of homesteads to satisfy any obligation.

The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture statute was unconstitutional in cases where homesteads were ordered to be forfeited.

. In a concurring opinion Justice Gildea opined: “I join in the majority’s conclusion to affirm the court of appeals, but I write separately because I believe that we should resolve this case without reaching the constitutional question the majority decides.  Respondents argue that Minnesota’s forfeiture statute is unconstitutional because it allows their homestead property to be subject to forfeiture.  Under the constitution, “[a] reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale for the payment of any debt or liability.”  Minn. Const. art I, § 12.  The constitution leaves it to the Minnesota Legislature to determine “[t]he amount of such exemption.”  There are two statutes that relate to the exemption amount in this case: the homestead exemption statute, and the forfeiture statute. We generally avoid reaching constitutional questions “if there is another basis on which a case can be decided.”  

Following our general practice, I would resolve this case based on the language of the two statutes, rather than reaching the constitutional question.  

 In the homestead exemption statute, the legislature provides for property up to a certain value and size to be “exempt from seizure under legal process on account of any debt not lawfully charged thereon.”  In the forfeiture statute, there is no limit on the value of property subject to forfeiture.   (“All property, real and personal, that has been used [in connection with controlled substances crimes] is subject to forfeiture under this section.  The statutes thus conflict.  

The legislature has directed that when two statutes conflict, the more specific provision controls over the general.  (“When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in another law, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision.”).  The homestead exemption statute is more specific because it relates to a specific type of property, the homestead, whereas the forfeiture statute applies to all types of property.  Being the more specific statute, the homestead exemption statute therefore controls.  Because the government seeks to forfeit property that falls within the statutory exemption of Minn. Stat. §510.01, I would hold that the forfeiture should have been denied.   


READ THE FULL CASE DECISION:  

David Torgelson, Renville County Attorney vs Kent Feigum

May 22, 2008                       2008-055            

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/0805/OPA061507-0522.pdf