Abstract
In Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., the United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its longstanding position that forfeiture statutes may be constitutionally applied to innocent property owners such as lessors, bailors, and secured creditors. The Court also held that seizure for purposes of forfeiture constitutes an "extraordinary situation" which justifies postponing notice and an adversary hearing. The decision overturned a lower court ruling which held the seizure and forfeiture to be unconstitutional on two distinct grounds: as a taking of property for government use without just compensation and as a taking of property without adequate notice and hearing. This Note argues that such seizure and forfeiture of beneficial property of innocent owners serves no legislative purpose and should be held unconstitutional. (The notice and hearing problems that accompany this procedure are beyond the scope of this article.)
Recommended Citation
Steven E. Achelpohl,
Statutory Forfeitures: The Taking of Pearson's Yacht: Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974),
54 Neb. L. Rev. 711
(1975)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol54/iss4/3