Opinion
C.A. No. 06M-10-001.
June 20, 2007
ORDER
On this 20th day of June, 2007, upon consideration of the Petition for Return of Property ("the petition") which petitioner Juanita Nelson ("petitioner") has filed, the Commissioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations dated June 4, 2007, and the record in this case, it appears that:
1) Petitioner filed the petition in this matter pursuant to 16Del. C. § 4784(j) and Super. Ct. Civ. R. 71.3 seeking the return of a 1995 Chrysler LHS (sometimes referred to as "the vehicle") which was seized from her son Terrence Nelson when he was arrested on drug-related charges on or about August 1, 2006.
2) The Court referred the petition to Superior Court Commissioner Alicia B. Howard pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512(b) and Superior Court Civil Rule 132(a)(4) for purposes of making findings of fact and reaching conclusions of law. The Commissioner has filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations dated June 4, 2007, wherein she recommends that the Superior Court conclude that the State of Delaware ("the State") established probable cause to have initiated the forfeiture proceeding; that petitioner has not met her burden of proving she was the actual owner of the vehicle; that petitioner has not met her burden of proving the innocent owner defense; that the Court deny petitioner her petition for return of the vehicle; and that the Court order the vehicle to be forfeited to the State. The Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.
(3) No objections to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations have been filed.
NOW, THEREFORE, after careful and de novo review of the record in this action, and for the reasons stated in the Commissioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations dated June 4, 2007,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Court adopts the well-reasoned Commissioner's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations;
(2) The Court concludes that the State established probable cause to have initiated the forfeiture proceeding;
(3) The Court concludes that petitioner has not met her burden of proving she was the actual owner of the vehicle;
(4) The Court concludes that petitioner has not met her burden of proving the innocent owner defense;
(5) The Court denies petitioner her petition for return of the vehicle; and
(6) The Court orders the 1995 Chrysler LHS to be forfeited to the State.