Administrative Proceedings
Review of Forfeiture Proceedings
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Oliver v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, No. M2021-00121-COA-R3-CV, p. 6-7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 4, 2022).
We review forfeiture proceedings using the judicial review standards in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”) as modified in the forfeiture statute. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-5-322(h) (2021), 40-33-213(b) (2018). Under the UAPA, the reviewing court may reverse or modify an agency decision only
if the rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(5)(A)(i) [U]nsupported by evidence that is both substantial and material in light of the entire record.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h). Because this is a forfeiture case, we assess the sufficiency of the evidence using the preponderance of the evidence standard. See id. § 40-33-213(b); McEwen v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 173 S.W.3d 815, 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
Brown v. Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, p. 4 No. M2021-00422-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 13, 2022).
Judicial review of civil forfeiture proceedings is primarily governed by the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”). Nicholas v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety & Homeland Sec., No. M2017-01674-COA-R3-CV, 2018 WL 3831518, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2018); McEwen v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety, 173 S.W.3d 815, 819 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). Under the version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322(h) in effect when the trial court rendered its decision, the agency’s decision may be reversed or modified if the decision is shown to be:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(5)(A) Unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record. . . .
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h). In forfeiture cases, this standard is slightly modified. Instead of the substantial-and-material-evidence standard under section 4-5-322(h)(5), the preponderance-of-evidence standard is used in determining whether to sustain or reverse the final agency order. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-33-213(a) (stating that in appeals of forfeiture cases “[t]he reviewing court shall use the preponderance of evidence standard in determining whether to sustain or reverse the final order of the applicable agency.”); McEwen, 173 S.W.3d at 819-20.
Holland v. Tenn., Dept. of Safety and Homeland Security, No. M2020-01044-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2022).
We review forfeiture proceedings using the judicial review standards in the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (“UAPA”) as modified in the forfeiture statute. See id. §§ 4-5-322(h), 40-33-213(b). Judicial review under the UAPA is generally limited to final decisions.2 See id. § 4-5-322(a)(1); Dishmon v. Shelby State Cmty. Coll., 15 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). A final judgment is a judgment “that resolves all of the parties’ claims and leaves the court with nothing to adjudicate.” Ball v. McDowell, 288 S.W.3d 833, 836-37 (Tenn. 2009).
…
Under the UAPA, a court may reverse or modify an administrative decision if the petitioner’s rights have been prejudiced because the administrative decision is “[i]n violation of constitutional or statutory provisions.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h)(1). Statutory construction is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Pickard v. Tenn. Water Quality Control Bd., 424 S.W.3d 511, 523 (Tenn. 2013); Jones v. Bureau of TennCare, 94 S.W.3d 495, 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
