Also known as: forfeit · forfeits · forfeited · forfeiting · forfeitures
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A penalty consisting of the loss or divestiture of property or a right because of a crime, breach of obligation, or neglect of duty. Title transfers simultaneously to another party such as the government. The concept applies whether the proceeding is in rem against the property or in personam against the wrongdoer.
Flora Ford parked her SUV on a public street outside her apartment. Officers developed probable cause that the vehicle had been used to transport controlled substances. They seized the SUV without a warrant and later discovered additional contraband during an inventory of its contents. The evidence from the inventory is admissible at trial because the initial seizure rested on probable cause that the vehicle itself was forfeitable contraband.
Fiona Foster intentionally killed her uncle, the decedent. Under the governing probate statute she is barred from taking any intestate share, elective share, or family allowance from his estate. The estate therefore passes as though Fiona had disclaimed her interest, and the property is distributed to the remaining heirs.
Fernando Farrell contracted to buy a parcel from Franklin Foundry under an installment land contract. After making several payments Fernando defaulted. The seller exercised its contractual remedy and terminated Fernando's equitable interest, regaining full legal title to the property without foreclosure proceedings.
Felipe Figueroa placed shares in a family trust that granted his cousin a right of first refusal at a fixed price far below current market value and with a six-month exercise period. Because the price and time terms were commercially unreasonable, the provision operated as a forfeiture restraint on alienation and was subject to invalidation under the applicable donative-transfer rules.
Francesca Fiore arranged the murder of a key prosecution witness to keep her from testifying at trial. Because the killing was committed with the intent to prevent testimony, the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine permits introduction of the witness's prior testimonial statements against Francesca even though she cannot be cross-examined.
Floyd Franklin was convicted of drug trafficking after the government proved every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction authorized criminal forfeiture of the proceeds and instrumentalities of the offense.
During a 1967 adjudicatory hearing conducted pursuant to section 742 of the New York Family Court Act, a judge in New York Family Court found that the twelve-year-old appellant had entered a locker and stolen one hundred twelve dollars from a woman's pocketbook. The petition which charged appellant with delinquency alleged that his act, if done by an adult, would constitute the crime or crimes of larceny. The judge acknowledged that the proof might not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but relied on section 744(b) of the New York Family Court Act, which provides that any determination at the conclusion of an adjudicatory hearing that a juvenile did an act or acts must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. After a subsequent dispositional hearing, appellant was ordered placed in a training school for an initial period of eighteen months, subject to annual extensions of his commitment until his eighteenth birthday, six years in appellant's case. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, affirmed without opinion. The New York Court of Appeals then affirmed by a four-to-three vote, expressly sustaining the constitutionality of section 744(b). The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseCivil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the property itself that does not require conviction of the owner. Criminal forfeiture is imposed as punishment after conviction of the defendant and is an in personam action against the wrongdoer.
Yes. The doctrine applies only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to keep the witness from testifying. Mere causation of the witness's unavailability is insufficient without that specific intent.
The killer is treated as having predeceased the decedent or as having disclaimed the interest. The estate passes to the remaining heirs or beneficiaries as though the killer had never been entitled to take.
In some jurisdictions the seller may terminate the contract and recover possession, causing the buyer to forfeit all prior payments and the equitable interest. Other states require foreclosure-like procedures before the seller can regain clear title.
…to the Confrontation Clause that make no claim to be a surrogate means of assessing reliability. For example, the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds; it does not purport to be an alternative means of determining reliability. See Reynolds…