{
  "id": 5583528,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. BERNARD CAREY, State's Attorney of Cook County, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1976 CHEVROLET VAN SERIAL NO. CGV1564131316, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Carey v. 1976 Chevrolet Van Serial No. CGV1564131316",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 78-660",
  "first_page": "758",
  "last_page": "761",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 3d 758"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "409 U.S. 38",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170862
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/409/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.E.2d 646",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. 2d 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5393812
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/52/0037-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 376,
    "char_count": 6106,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.909,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0606865016185133e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8566049603664152
    },
    "sha256": "9df0ca7ff213a220126eec691f5a11ae4c31cfd1984661c308309254a93f8ce0",
    "simhash": "1:9c96812c7c2dd9b9",
    "word_count": 1059
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:39:04.921292+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE ex rel. BERNARD CAREY, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1976 CHEVROLET VAN SERIAL NO. CGV1564131316, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe People of the State of Illinois brought this in rem action to declare a certain vehicle forfeited. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 38, par. 36 \u2014 1 et seq.) After hearing evidence, the trial court refused to enter a forfeiture order. The court, instead, awarded the vehicle to a person whom it found to be the true owner. That person\u2019s interest had not been recorded in the office of the Secretary of State.\nPlaintiff contends on appeal that the trial court erred in interpreting the word \u201cowner\u201d as applying to a person who has no recorded interest in the vehicle. Plaintiff argues in the alternative that the trial court\u2019s determination of ownership was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\nOn August 9, 1977, plaintiff filed a complaint requesting that a 1976 Chevrolet van be forfeited and sold or otherwise disposed of as provided by statute. The basis of the complaint was that the vehicle had been used by James P. Burgess in violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 56*2, par. 1100 et seq.) Notice of the proceedings was sent to James P. Burgess whose interest in the vehicle was of record in the office of the Secretary of State.\nDefault proceedings on the issue of forfeiture were held on October 19, 1977. A narcotics officer testified as to the purchase of heroin from James P. Burgess, the arrest of Burgess, and the seizure of the van from which the heroin sale took place. Another officer testified that a registration check revealed said vehicle was registered to James P. Burgess. The court continued the cause, but indicated that the forfeiture order would be entered.\nOn November 9, 1977, James P. Burgess filed what was entitled a motion to vacate judgment. The motion recited that his father, James Y. Burgess, was the true owner of the van and that the father had no knowledge the vehicle would be used in the violation of any law. The motion requested that the vehicle be returned to the father. The trial court granted a hearing on the motion. The hearing, at which the parties stipulated that the sole issue was ownership of the vehicle, was held on December 14, 1977.\nJames Y. Burgess, the father, testified that he had told his son to come home to \u201cget straightened out.\u201d His son asked to purchase a van, and the father let him have *5000 to purchase the van in the father\u2019s name. Despite that instruction, the son placed the title in his own name. The father kept physical possession of the title and figured he owned the van. He permitted the son to use the vehicle, but he was unaware of any illegal activities on the part of his son relative to the charge in question. The witness had made no express agreement with his son as to repayment. The son was to repay \u201cas much as he could, when he could.\u201d In response to a question by the trial court as to whether he was to get his *5000, the father stated: \u201cWe didn\u2019t make no agreement on payments back\u2014 whatever he could afford to pay me back.\u201d\nJames P. Burgess testified that he intended to register the vehicle in his father\u2019s name. He did not do so because the lady at the currency exchange said it could not be done unless his father was with him. The witness figured he could make payments to his father anyway, and had paid his father *900.\nOn February 1,1978, the trial court, after hearing argument, refused to enter a forfeiture order in favor of plaintiff. Rather, it entered an order remitting the vehicle to \u201cits true owner,\u201d James Y. Burgess.\nWe initially consider plaintiff\u2019s contention that the trial court\u2019s determination of ownership was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\nA forfeiture action is an in rem proceeding against the item used in the commission of a crime. (People ex rel. Hanrahan v. One 1965 Oldsmobile (1972), 52 Ill. 2d 37, 284 N.E.2d 646, rev\u2019d on other grounds (1972), 409 U.S. 38, 34 L. Ed. 2d 47, 93 S. Ct. 30.) The legislative policy behind forfeiture statutes is that forfeiture of vehicles is permitted in order to repress certain types of crimes when these vehicles are used in the commission thereof. One 1965 Oldsmobile.\nPlaintiff argues that the trial court\u2019s determination finding the father to be the \u201ctrue owner\u201d of the van was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We agree.\nThe vehicle is listed on the registration only in the son\u2019s name. The father knew that only the son was listed as owner, but took no action to have the registration changed. The father suggests that the failure was inadvertent, but nothing in the record supports that conclusion. More importantly, there was no binding agreement between the parties requiring the son to pay the father for the vehicle. The absence of any agreement is apparent from the father\u2019s testimony. The son was free to pay whatever he could afford and free to pay the father only if he could afford it. The evidence was overwhelming that the son was the owner of the van. The trial court\u2019s determination that the father was the true owner of the vehicle was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\nIn view of our holding, it is unnecessary to consider plaintiff\u2019s contention that under the statute a person who has no recorded interest in a vehicle cannot be considered an owner of the vehicle.\nFor the reasons stated, the order of the circuit court of Cook County awarding the vehicle to James Y. Burgess is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter the forfeiture order.\nOrder reversed and cause remanded with directions.\nSIMON, P. J., and RIZZI, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McNAMARA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Paul P. Biebel, Jr., Solomon Slotky, and Michael F. Baccash, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Edward M. Genson and Jeffrey B. Steinbeck, both of Chicago (Cheryl I. Harris, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE ex rel. BERNARD CAREY, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 1976 CHEVROLET VAN SERIAL NO. CGV1564131316, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 78-660\nOpinion filed May 30, 1979.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Paul P. Biebel, Jr., Solomon Slotky, and Michael F. Baccash, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.\nEdward M. Genson and Jeffrey B. Steinbeck, both of Chicago (Cheryl I. Harris, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0758-01",
  "first_page_order": 780,
  "last_page_order": 783
}