Circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction over civil drug forfeiture actions. See MCL 600.605 (“Circuit courts have original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil claims and remedies, except where exclusive jurisdiction is given in the constitution or by statute to some other court or where the circuit courts are denied jurisdiction by the constitution or statutes of this state.”) See also People v One 1973 Pontiac, 84 Mich App 231, 234 (1978) (holding that the applicable forfeiture statute required the prompt institution of in rem judicial forfeiture proceedings in the circuit court).1
Generally, in in rem proceedings, “possession or control over the subject matter or res of the action is essential to the court’s jurisdiction to enter a judgment.” In re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street, 194 Mich App 381, 387 (1992). Specifically, “[a] forfeiture proceeding brought under [Article 7 of the PHC] requires the seizing agency to be in possession or control of the res in order to vest the court with jurisdiction to enter an order of forfeiture.” In re Forfeiture of 19203 Albany, 210 Mich App 337, 343 (1995), citing In re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street, 194 Mich App at 387. Control over property may be accomplished by placing the property under seal, removing it, or turning it over to an administrator. In re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street, 194 Mich App at 387 (citation omitted). See also MCL 333.7523(3)(a)-(c). However, MCL 333.7523 “does not exclude other methods of exercising possession or control.” In re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street, 194 Mich App at 387. See also In re Forfeiture of 19203 Albany, 210 Mich App at 344 (holding that the filing of a notice of lis pendens against the property before filing a forfeiture complaint was sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the circuit court).
B.Jurisdiction to Review Administrative Forfeiture Proceedings
“[I]f the prosecutor gives proper notice to the owners of [seized] property and no claim is filed within twenty days of its receipt, the property may be deemed forfeited[, and t]he trial court no longer has jurisdiction.” Hollins v Detroit Police Dep’t, 225 Mich App 341, 347 (1997). See also MCL 333.7523(1)(c).2 Accordingly, once an administrative forfeiture has been declared, see MCL 333.7523(1)(d), a circuit court does not have jurisdiction to review the forfeiture. In re Return of Forfeited Goods, 452 Mich 659, 662 (1996) (holding that where the sheriff’s department fully complied with the statutory procedures for administrative forfeiture under Article 7 of the PHC and because the defendant failed to properly contest the forfeiture under MCL 333.7523, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review the procedure and was without authority to order the return of the defendant’s property after charges against him were dismissed; the fact that the prosecutor agreed to return the property did not confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court). However, where the government fails to provide proper notice to the property owner, the circuit court has jurisdiction to order the return of property. Hollins, 225 Mich App at 346-347. “To hold otherwise would be to deny plaintiffs a forum in which to seek relief. It would deprive them of a remedy for the claim that a defendant wrongfully seized their property without giving notice as due process requires.” Id. at 347.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear, as an appeal of right, appeal of certain “final judgment[s] or final order[s] of the circuit court[.]” MCR 7.203(A)(1). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review a forfeiture case after the circuit court issues a final forfeiture order. In re Forfeiture of $28,088, 172 Mich App 200, 203-204 (1988). Moreover, a reviewing court maintains jurisdiction over a forfeiture case after disposition of the forfeited property, and the sale or disposition of seized property does not render a forfeiture dispute moot. In re Forfeiture of $256, 445 Mich 279, 282 (1994).
“Michigan courts only have jurisdiction over land situated within its territorial borders.” In re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 194 Mich App 134, 140 (1992) (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over property located in Florida), citing MCL 600.751 (“The courts of record of this state shall have jurisdiction over land situated within the state whether or not the persons owning or claiming interests therein are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.”).
1 This case construed
2 Notice is discussed in Section 11.12(C).