- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
- Date Filed: 05-06-2020
- Case #: A166962
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J., dissenting.
- Full Text Opinion
Respondent appealed the trial court’s forfeiture order of his animals to the Klamath Humane Society following failure to pay a bond for the animals’ expenses. Respondent assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a jury trial on the petition, under ORS 167.347, for the forfeiture of the seized animals. On appeal, Respondent argued that, because a right to a jury trial exists in forfeiture cases, he was entitled to a jury trial. In response, the State argued a forfeiture under ORS 167.347 is not analogous to forfeiture at common law, since a forfeiture under ORS 167.347 is not a punishment for illegal activity, and therefore no right to a jury trial exists. Under ORS 167.347, animal shelters caring for impounded animals may file a petition in the criminal case for the defendant to put up a bond to pay for the animals’ care; if the bond is unpaid, the animals are forfeited. The Court concluded that an animal forfeiture claim is most akin to a lien foreclosure claim in general, which was not entitled to a jury trial at the time of the adoption of the Oregon Constitution, and it does not include the kind of fact-finding that would customarily be tried to a jury. The Court reasoned the forfeiture is not a punishment and the defendant is given the opportunity to post a bond, as such, because the proceeding does not require a factual finding, legal questions and equitable determinations are usually made by courts. Thus, the Court held the Respondent was not entitled to a jury trial. Affirmed.