Filing a Late Claim for Forfeiture

What happens if the government files a civil asset in rem forfeiture action to enforce its claim for seized property, but the Claimant misses the deadline to file a claim?

Can the Claimant file a motion requesting leave to file a late claim showing good cause? That good cause might include a showing that the Claimant was never personally served with the complaint, and did not receive the person notice of the judicial forfeiture action before the deadline expired.

The Court might approve motions for leave to file late verified claims form claimants who demonstrate good cause, usually because:

• the Claimants acted diligently upon belatedly learning of the civil asset forfeiture proceeding;
• there was minimal prejudice given the early stage of the proceedings; and/or
• the Government’s agreement to extensions for other claimants.

If a Claimant files a verified claim that appears to be untimely without requesting leave to file late, the Court might dismiss that claim as untimely. Consistent with Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(ii) and “for good cause,” the Court might set a final cut-off date for claims to ensure that the civil asset forfeiture proceeding can go forward in a timely and organized manner.

Attorney on Requesting Leave to File a Late Claim

If you just found out that a complaint for forfeiture in rem was filed and you missed the deadline for good cause, contact an experienced civil asset forfeiture attorney at Sammis Law Firm.

We can explain the rules for filing a claim claim and answer to the complaint for forfeiture.

Call 813-250-0500.

Factors for Granting a Request to File a Late Claim

Some courts strictly enforce adherence to the time period set forth for the filing of a verified statement of interest. For example, in United States v. $ 104,674.00, 17 F.3d 267, 268-69 (8th Cir. 1994), the Court held that the claimants should “strictly comply” with the time or content requirements of Supplemental Rule C(6). In United States v. Amiel, 995 F.2d 367, 371 (2d Cir. 1993), the Court found that “strict compliance with Supplemental Rule C(6) is typically required.”

The discretionary factors for granting a request to file a late claim are laid out in United States v. $83,686.00 in U.S. Currency Seized from Suntrust Acct. No. 1000018120112, 498 F. Supp. 2d 21, 24 (D.D.C. 2007).

On the other hand, in United States v. One 1990 Mercedes Benz 300CE, 926 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1996), the court identified the following discretionary factors that may be considered in determining whether an untimely claim should constitute an absolute bar to a claimant’s ability to contest a forfeiture in a particular case:

• the time at which the claimant became aware of the seizure;
• whether the government encouraged the delay;
• the reasons proffered for the delay;
• whether the claimant has advised the Court and the government of their interest in the defendant property before the claim deadline;
• whether the government would be prejudiced by allowing the late filing; and
• whether the claimant timely petitioned for an enlargement of time.

Other factors recognized by the courts include:

• whether the claimant was properly served; and
• whether the claimant acted in good faith.

See United States v. $ 100,348.00 in United States Currency, 354 F.3d 1110, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In $100,348.00 in United States Currency, 354 F.3d at 1116, it was noted:

“[a court] should exercise its discretion to grant additional time [in an in rem forfeiture action] where the goals underlying the time restriction … are not thwarted.”

As a matter of policy, the purpose of the time restriction for the filing of verified claims in such actions “is to force claimants to come forward as soon as possible after forfeiture proceedings have been initiated so that all interested parties can be heard and the dispute resolved without delay.” United States v. 51 Pieces of Real Property Roswell, N.M., 17 F.3d 1306, 1318 (10th Cir. 1994).

In some cases, the Courts find that notice of an in rem forfeiture action sent to the claimant’s attorney was constitutionally sufficient where the attorney represented the claimant in related proceedings. Bye v. United States, 105 F.3d 856, 857 (2d Cir. 1997).

The Government’s Motion to Strike a Late Claim

The government might file a motion to strike this claim as untimely filed under the Federal Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”).

The Government’s motion to strike the late claim might argue that it was filed outside of the thirty-day period prescribed by the Supplemental Rules. Those rules provide that in order to establish the requisite standing to contest the forfeiture action, a prospective claimant must file a verified statement of interest “not later than 30 days after the date of service of the Government’s complaint or, as applicable, not later than 30 days after the date of final publication of notice of the filing of the complaint.” 18 U.S.C. § 983(a)(4)(A).

Read more about the deadlines for filing an administrative or judicial claim in a civil asset forfeiture proceeding.

This article was last updated on Monday, December 1, 2025.