Filing a Late Claim for Forfeiture

What happens if the government files a judicial civil asset in rem forfeiture action to enforce its claim for seized property in the appropriate U.S. District Court, 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? Although it is better to drop everything else to make sure the claim is filed by the deadline listed in the notice published on forfeiture.gov (or the personal notice if received), a motion for leave to file a late claim should be filed as soon as the claimant realized the deadline was missed.

The Court might approve motions for leave to file late verified claims for claimants who demonstrate good cause for missing the deadline announced in the notice of seizure.

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.

The court will typically approve motions for leave to file late verified claims from claimants who have demonstrated good cause under the discretionary factors 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), usually because the claimant acted diligently upon belatedly learning of this action and because there was minimal prejudice given the early stage of the proceedings and the government’s agreement to extensions for other claimants (if any).

Some claimants might file verified claims on the docket that appear untimely without requesting leave to file late, but the court might strike that, so asking for leave is required. At some point, the court might set a final cut-off date for claims to ensure that this matter can proceed 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). In that case, 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;
• whether the claimant timely petitioned for an enlargement of time;
• whether the claimant was properly served; and
• whether the claimant acted in good faith.

See United States v. One 1990 Mercedes Benz 300CE, 926 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1996).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.

Sample Template for the Motion to File an Untimely (Late) Verified Claim

The attorneys at Sammis Law Firm created this simple template for a motion to file an untimely verified claim to help you spot the issues, although only an experienced attorney can help you file such a claim to make sure it is legally sufficient and more likely to be granted by the court.

[insert caption as listed in the complaint for a judicial civil asset forfeiture case]

MOTION TO FILE AN UNTIMELY VERIFIED CLAIM

Proposed Claimant ______ (the “Claimant”), through counsel, respectfully moves pursuant to Rule G(5) of Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure this Court for permission to file an untimely Verified Claim attesting to his lawful interest in the following seized property in the instant action:

[insert a description of the property as listed in the complaint or the relevant portion of that property]

(hereinafter, the “Seized Funds” and the “Account”). The government opposes [or does not oppose] this motion.

A proposed Verified Claim, executed under the pains and penalty of perjury and otherwise pursuant to the requirements of Rule G(5) of Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is attached as Exhibit A.

In support of this Motion, the Claimant provides as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

1. This is a civil forfeiture action, in rem, whereby the government seeks to forfeit, inter alia, [insert description of the property as listed in the complaint].
2. Claimant has signed and is submitting the attached Verified Claim, under oath as required by Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Exhibit A.
3. The contents of the Verified Claim are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
4. As set forth in the attached Verified Claim, Clamant is an innocent owner of the entirety of the Seized Funds because their property interest in the contents of the Seized Funds’ account was in existence at the time the alleged conduct allegedly gave rise to the forfeiture, and they did not know of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture.
5. According to the Verified Claim, the seized funds represent an asset belonging to Claimant derived from [[explain how the property was obtained and how the funds used to purchase the property were legally earned]].
6. According to the Verified Claim, [[explain why the claimant did not received a personal notice of seizure letter in the mail or via email, and why the claimant did not find the published notice on the forfeiture.gov website, and any problems with the way the government attempted to provide notice to claimant]].
7. According to the Declaration of Service filed by the government on [[date]], the government [[explain how the government attempted to serve the claimant or any other potential claimant with notice and why those attempts were insufficient to provide actual notice to claimant]].

II. CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENT

A. The Court Has Discretion to Permit an Untimely Verified Claim

This Court has discretion to permit the filing of an otherwise untimely claim. See Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Rule G(5)(a)(ii) (claim deadline is in effect “[u]nless the court for good cause sets a different time”).

Good cause is a “permissive” standard. See U.S. v. Starling, 76 F.4th 92, 98 (2d. Cir. 2023). Multiple federal courts in different Circuits have identified the following non-exhaustive factors that determine whether good cause exists:

1. the date and manner in which claimant became aware of the seizure;
2. the reasons proffered for the delay;
3. whether the claimant advised the Court and the Government of its interest in the currency before the claim deadline;
4. whether the Government would be prejudiced by allowing the late filing;
5. the sufficiency of the answer in meeting the basic requirements of the verified claim; and
6. whether the claimant timely petitioned for an enlargement of time.

United States v. $146,400.00 in United States Currency, No. 21-cv-808-DWD, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23565, at *5-6 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2022) (allowing motion to extend time to file claim) (citations omitted).

The factors follow “the time-honored admiralty principle that pleadings and procedural practices in maritime actions should be applied liberally,” and that in an
in rem action “a district judge should exercise his discretion to grant additional time for the filing of a claim… when the goals underlying the time restrictions and the verification of the claim are not thwarted.” U.S. v. One Urban Lot Located at 1 Street A-1, 885 F.2d 994, 1001 (1st Cir. 1989) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). See generally U.S. v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 753 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. 100,348.00 in U.S. Currency, 354 F.3d 1110, 1117-18 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. One 1979 Mercedes 450se, 651 F. Supp. 351, 353-55 (S.D. Fla. 1987); United States v. U.S. Currency, in amount of $103,387.27, 863 F.2d 555, 562 (7th Cir. 1988).

In U.S. v. $103,387.27, the District Court denied a claimant’s request to file an untimely amended complaint. Id. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions that the District Court consider the request for an extension using an analysis of similar factors. Id. at 563. The Seventh Circuit stated:

…where the 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.

Id. at 562. The Seventh Circuit also observed that the claimant’s attorney had attempted to notify the United States Attorney’s Office of his intent to file a claim.

B. Good Cause Exists to Permit an Untimely Verified Claim

Claimant’ Verified Claim should be admitted notwithstanding its timeliness because each of the factors establishing good cause are present here.

[[explain how each of these factors apply in the instance case and any case law supporting those same circumstances]].

III. Conclusion

Should the Court grant this motion, the Claimant will file an Answer and/or a Motion to Dismiss within the 21-day period. See Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, Rule G(5)(b) (21 days from filing of Verified Claim to answer or move pursuant to Rule 12).

Claimant has not filed a Motion to Dismiss along with this Motion because the Court may deny this motion and Claimant intends to draft and submit such a pleading only after receiving permission, which will avoid potentially unnecessary (and significant) legal expenses necessary to prepare such a motion. Id.

WHEREFORE, Claimant respectfully requests the Court permit him to file the attached Verified Claim.

Dated: _____, 2026

This article was last updated on Friday, June 26, 2026.