Appellant has not referred to any authority so holding. In the Matter of 1969 Ford Truck, 122 Ariz. 442, 595 P.2d 674 (App. 1979) contains the following statement, with which we agree: ". . . if a claimant desires to raise defenses going to the underlying illegal use of the vehicle, or to the claimant's lack of knowledge of such use, he must file a verified answer under A.R.S. § 36-1044."

See also, Annot., "Forfeiture of property for unlawful use before trial of individual offender," 3 A.L.R.2d 738; Annot., "Relief to owner of motor vehicle subject to state forfeiture for use in violation of narcotic laws," 50 A.L.R.3d 172; Annot., "Forfeiture of personal property used in illegal manufacture, processing, or sale of controlled substances under § 511 of Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 USCA § 881)," 59 A.L.R.Fed. 765. Courts have also held that forfeiture statutes should be strictly complied with and have forfeited the property where a defendant failed to prove a verified answer within the statutory period or to otherwise comply with the statute. Matter of 1969 Ford Truck, Etc. (1979), 122 Ariz. 442, 595 P.2d 674. Here, the statutes require a notice of forfeiture within forty-five days of seizure of the property.

Appellant has not referred to any authority so holding. In the Matter of 1969 Ford Truck, 122 Ariz. 442, 595 P.2d 674 (App. 1979) contains the following statement, with which we agree: ". . . if a claimant desires to raise defenses going to the underlying illegal use of the vehicle, or to the claimant's lack of knowledge of such use, he must file a verified answer under A.R.S. § 36-1044."

A default judgment was eventually entered along with the judgment to retain the vehicle. Preliminarily, the state has argued that appellant was correctly denied relief below since he failed to timely raise his challenge to the proceedings, citing In the Matter of 1969 Ford Truck I.D. No. E14AHD34733, License No. 2 CB-870, 122 Ariz. 442, 595 P.2d 674 (App. 1979). However, in that case, the appellant was advancing an illegal search and seizure argument in the motion to suppress and was therefore bound by the 20-day requirement of Rule 16.1(b), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.