USA Foreclosure Wiki

Bennis v. Michigan (1996)

3 min read

Bennis v. Michigan (1996)

Citation: 516 U.S. 442 · Court: Supreme Court of the United States · Decided: March 4, 1996 (argued November 29, 1995) · Opinion: Rehnquist, C.J., for the Court (joined by O’Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg, JJ.); Thomas, J., and Ginsburg, J., concurring; Stevens, J. (joined by Souter and Breyer, JJ.) and Kennedy, J., dissenting.

Facts

Tina Bennis was a joint owner, with her husband, of a car in which he engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. Under Michigan’s public-nuisance abatement scheme, the trial court declared the car forfeited and allowed no offset for her interest, although she did not know of her husband’s conduct. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the absence of an innocent-owner defense had no federal constitutional consequence.

Holding

“The forfeiture order did not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” (Syllabus.)

Reasoning

Her claim that she could contest the abatement by showing she did not know her husband would use the car illegally “is defeated by a long and unbroken line of cases in which this Court has held that an owner’s interest in property may be forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is put even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to such use” (citing, e.g., Van Oster v. Kansas and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.). Because the property was lawfully forfeited, the Takings Clause did not require compensation. (Syllabus.)

Practical impact

  • The Constitution, on this holding, does not itself guarantee an innocent co-owner (or by extension a lender or lessor) a defense to forfeiture of a vehicle. Protection comes from statute: in federal civil forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. § 983(d) (enacted in 2000) provides that “[a]n innocent owner’s interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute.” State forfeiture statutes vary.
  • For a buyer of a forfeited vehicle, the case explains why the forfeiture judgment or declaration, not the prior owner’s knowledge, determines the government’s title.
  • Later decisions discuss its limits: Culley v. Marshall (2024) notes the Court “has suggested an innocent owner defense is not always constitutionally required,” citing Bennis, in a concurrence.

Good-law status

Still good law; discussed in culley-v-marshall-2024. Excessive-fines limits on forfeiture apply to the States after timbs-v-indiana-2019.

Applies in →

All jurisdictions (federal constitutional floor). See forfeiture-and-government-seizure-sales, motor-vehicles.

Sources

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.

Graph View

Backlinks