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. Jason Sammis and Leslie Sammis have experience fighting civil asset forfeiture cases and representing the owner of the property, the lien holder, spouses, innocent owners, and victims of scams.

Call 813-250-0500.

Deadlines to File a Judicial Claim for Court Action

Rule G supplies the procedural framework applicable to civil forfeiture actions. A person who “asserts an interest” in the defendant property “may contest the forfeiture by filing a claim.” Rule G(5)(a)(i). The substantive requirements for filing a claim are simple: subject to penalty of perjury, the claimant must “identify the specific property claimed” and “state the claimant’s interest in the property.” Id.

The deadlines for filing a claim vary according to whether a potential claimant received direct notice or notice by publication. In either case, the deadlines imposed by Rule G apply “[u]nless the court for good cause sets a different time” and are intended to be enforced strictly.

As the Second Circuit has stated, “a critical purpose of Rule G is that ‘it forces claimants to come forward as quickly as possible after the initiation of forfeiture proceedings, so that the court may hear all interested parties and resolve the dispute without delay.’” United States v. $417,143.48, 682 F. App’x 17, 19 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. $487,825.00 in U.S. Currency, 484 F.3d 662, 664 (3d Cir. 2007)).

“That purpose would be thwarted if claimants came to view the strictures of Rule G as mere suggestions rather than as rules that will presumptively be enforced.” Id. at 19-20. In $487,825.00, 484 F.3d at 664-65, the court explained that “[t]he requirement that the claimant file a timely verified statement” is “no mere procedural technicality.”

While the deadline may be extended for good cause, “the court’s discretion is not unbounded,” and “[t]he court should exercise its discretion to allow a late claim only if the goals underlying the time restriction and the verification requirement are not thwarted.” United States v. 51 Pieces of Real Property, 17 F.3d 1306, 1318 (10th Cir. 1994).

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 Court’s Discretion to Permit Enlargements of Time to File a Claim Late

The Court has discretion to permit enlargements of the time to submit third-party claims to the defendants in rem, on a showing of “good cause.” Supp. R. G(5)(a)(ii) & C(6)(a)(i)(B).

In United States v. Khan, 497 F.3d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 2007), the court noted that “[t]he district court, however, has the authority to extend the time period for filing verified claims.” This is the same “good cause” standard embodied in Rule 6(b)(1) that results in routine extensions of the time to initially answer or respond to a pleading, and that “gives the district court wide discretion to grant a request for additional time” that “normally will be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Alexander v. Saul, 5 F.4th 139, 154 (2d Cir. 2021).

In United States v. $175,918.00 In U.S. Currency, 755 F. Supp. 630, 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), the court cited cases and observed that “numerous courts have held that ‘where putative claimants have placed the court and the government on notice of their interest in the property and their intent to contest the forfeiture, courts will grant extensions of time, recognizing both the good-faith effort put forth and the lack of prejudice to the government under such circumstances.’”

Additionally, in United States v. U.S. Currency, in the Amount of $103,387.27, 863 F.2d 555, 561-62 (7th Cir. 1988), the court listed factors that guide exercise of discretion to grant civil forfeiture claim extensions include: “1) whether the claimant has advised the court and government of his interest in the defendant—here the currency—before the claim deadline, and (2) whether the government would be prejudiced by allowing the late filing.”

In United States v. Agudelo-Garcia, 240 F. Supp. 2d 220, 230 (E.D.N.Y. 2003), the court recognized that courts “typically exercise their discretion when claimants have timely placed the court and government on notice of their interest in the property and intent to contest the forfeiture, recognizing both the good-faith effort put forth and the lack of prejudice to the government under such circumstances.”

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 Wednesday, January 7, 2026.