Paez v. City of Coral Gables

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paez v. City of Coral Gables

851 So. 2d 189, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8768, 2003 WL 21341904

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-1253

StatusPublished

This text of 851 So. 2d 189 (Paez v. City of Coral Gables) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paez v. City of Coral Gables, 851 So. 2d 189, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8768, 2003 WL 21341904 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Olga Paez, appeals from a Final Judgment of Forfeiture in which the trial court found that she lacked standing to challenge or participate in the forfeiture action. Because the appellant signed an affidavit stating that she did not have any legal interest in the seized funds, the trial court properly found that the appellant lacked standing. See Gonzalez v. City of Homestead, 825 So.2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“To establish standing, a claimant as a general rule must show ownership, or an ownership interest, in the property which has been seized.”); Munoz v. City of Coral Gables, 695 So.2d 1283, 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“[T]o contest a forfeiture action, a party must first demonstrate an interest in the seized property sufficient to satisfy the court of the party’s standing as a claimant.”); but see City of Fort Lauderdale v. Baruch, 718 So.2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Therefore, the order under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Olga Paez, appeals from a Final Judgment of Forfeiture in which the trial court found that she lacked standing to challenge or participate in the forfeiture action. Because the appellant signed an affidavit stating that she did not have any legal interest in the seized funds, the trial court properly found that the appellant lacked standing. See Gonzalez v. City of Homestead, 825 So.2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“To establish standing, a claimant as a general rule must show ownership, or an ownership interest, in the property which has been seized.”); Munoz v. City of Coral Gables, 695 So.2d 1283, 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“[T]o contest a forfeiture action, a party must first demonstrate an interest in the seized property sufficient to satisfy the court of the party’s standing as a claimant.”); but see City of Fort Lauderdale v. Baruch, 718 So.2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Therefore, the order under review is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 So. 2d 189, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 8768, 2003 WL 21341904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paez-v-city-of-coral-gables-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack