ÿWPC>' …# VUNa %¯ 0Nµ 0Í bÐ w@Ø 4 , ; m= 0DT  Ƙ 0e^ 0Jà 0T 0^a 0h¿ ' †/ 0rµ 0|' 0†£ 0) 1u¹ 0d. B’ D3¯U>âB)  0@IDC‰ AMÌU*.CÍqú>(8è`v~HvÓÆ AO™%Æè% 0D®& D/ò& B!'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù(}(2‚þ$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X¥}X¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- ÝDÞßDàUáUâãEäåÓ€ïDÒ 3|xïÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#*¶2Quick 1.ÚƒÚÚ  Ú.à0 àÛ€Û2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôgiovino v. kincaid - opinion Í  ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò,,,,7Border 1dd€-.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌMarch€19,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ÃÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMr.€¢Fogarty£€eventually€pleaded€guilty€to€conspiracy€to€deliver€a€Schedule€VIÏcontrolled€substance€in€excess€of€seventy€pounds.€€He€was€sentenced€to€eight€years€in€the€stateÏpenitentiary€and€was€required€to€pay€a€$100,000€fine.Ì ðÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMs.€¢Giovino£€stated€that€she€had€mortgaged€her€property€to€raise€the€money€and€hadÏgiven€it€to€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€with€the€understanding€that€he€intended€to€use€it€for€a€legitimateÏbusiness€investment€in€Tennessee€or€to€purchase€a€home€in€Tennessee€for€them€and€theirÏchildren.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€common€exceptions€to€the€exhaustion€doctrine€are€discussed€in€2€Charles€H.ÏKoch,€Jr.,€òòAdministrative€Law€and€Practiceóó€ðð€10.24[4]€&€[5]€(Supp.€1997).€€Tennessee€courtsÏhave€recognized€the€futility€exception,€òòState€ex€rel.€Jones€v.€City€of€Nashville,óó€198€Tenn.€280,Ï284,€279€¢S.W.2d£€267,€268€(1955);€òòTurner€v.€Regional€Mental€Health€Ctr.€of€Oak€Ridge,€Inc.,óóÏC.A.€No.€134,€1986€WL€8276,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€29,€1986),€and€the€exceptionÏinvolving€purely€questions€of€law.€€òò¢Fentress£€County€Bank€v.€Holt,óó€535€¢S.W.2d£€854,€857Ï(Tenn.€1976).Ì ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€+XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€record€contains€a€letter€from€an€assistant€attorney€general€representing€theÏDepartment€of€Safety€stating€that€the€department€would€be€willing€to€permit€Ms.€¢Giovino£€to€fileÏa€claim€but€that€the€department€would€challenge€the€timeliness€of€the€claim.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€+ÔÔ€+¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€O3¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àÔ€+„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€/1.A1-j|—ü` ç `€€@ÿRß›à@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÔ€+¼ÔÌÌÌó óANDREA€GIOVINO,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€91698ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9609„CV„00388ÌBARRY€KINCAID€andà àà àà à)ÌEDDIE€CAPLES,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€FOR€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏDefendants/Appelleesóó:ÌÌE.E.€Edwards,€IIIà àà àà àà àà àà àLisa€M.€CarsonÌEDWARDS€&€SIMMONSà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TennesseeÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àÔ€+„Ôò òVACATED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€+¼ÔÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÓ€ÓÔ€+„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€+¼ÔÌà àThis€appeal€involves€the€forfeiture€of€$100,000€in€currency€used€toÏpurchase€one€hundred€pounds€of€marijuana€from€an€undercover€officer.€€AÏperson€claiming€to€be€the€innocent€owner€of€a€portion€of€the€seized€funds€filedÏa€declaratory€judgment€action€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÏasserting€that€the€money€had€been€seized€illegally,€that€she€had€been€deprivedÏof€an€opportunity€to€file€a€claim€for€the€money,€and€that€the€money€should€beÏreturned.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€complaint€because€the€claimant€hadÏfailed€to€exhaust€her€administrative€remedies€under€the€Tennessee€DrugÏControl€Act.€€We€have€determined€that€the€claimant€was€entitled€to€a€portionÏof€the€declaratory€relief€she€sought€and,€therefore,€vacate€the€order€dismissingÏher€complaint.ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€€€ó óÌÌà àOn€November€7,€1991,€John€¢Fogarty£€paid€Barry€¢Kincaid£€$100,000€inÏcash€for€one€hundred€pounds€of€marijuana.€€He€was€arrested€immediatelyÏbecause€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€turned€out€to€be€a€Williamson€County€deputy€sheriffÏworking€undercover€as€part€of€the€Twenty„First€Judicial€District€Drug€TaskÏForce.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Following€the€arrest,€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€turned€over€Mr.€¢Fogarty£ððs€moneyÏto€Gary€Luther,€another€task€force€member,€and€Mr.€Luther€gave€Mr.€¢Kincaid£Ïa€notice€of€seizure€naming€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€as€the€owner€and€possessor€of€theÍmoney.€€Mr.€Luther€gave€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€a€notice€of€seizure€for€his€vehicle€butÏnot€for€the€$100,000.ÌÌà àThe€notice€of€seizure€triggered€an€administrative€forfeiture€proceedingÏby€the€Department€of€Safety.€€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€did€not€know€about€the€proceedingÏbecause€only€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€had€received€the€formal€notice€of€seizure.€€A€lawyerÏrepresenting€Andrea€¢Giovino£,€Mr.€¢Fogarty£ððs€common„law€wife,€sent€Mr.Ï¢Kincaid£€a€letter€on€November€21,€1991,€claiming€$75,000€of€the€moneyÏobtained€from€Mr.€¢Fogarty£.¢× ƒ3 ××  ×£€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€never€responded€to€the€letter€andÏnever€informed€Ms.€¢Giovino£€or€her€lawyer€of€the€forfeiture€proceedings€thenÏpending€before€the€Department€of€Safety.€€The€record€contains€no€evidenceÏthat€either€Ms.€¢Giovino£€or€her€lawyer€knew€that€these€proceedings€had€alreadyÏbegun€or€that€Mr.€Kincaid€ever€provided€the€Department€of€Safety€with€aÏcopy€of€the€letter€written€by€Ms.€Giovinoððs€lawyer.ÌÌà àThe€Department€of€Safety€did€not€conduct€a€forfeiture€hearing€for€theÏ$100,000€because€no€one€filed€a€timely€claim€for€the€money.€€On€December€3,Ï1991,€the€Commissioner€of€Safety€issued€an€order€summarily€forfeiting€theÏmoney€and€releasing€it€to€the€Twenty„First€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force.€ÏMr.€¢Kincaid£€received€notice€of€this€action,€but€the€Department€of€Safety€didÏnot€notify€either€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€or€Ms.€¢Giovino£€that€the€money€had€beenÏforfeited€because€they€had€not€filed€a€claim€with€the€department€and€becauseÍthe€department€had€never€identified€them€as€owners,€possessors,€or€claimantsÏof€the€money.€€ÌÌà àOn€December€23,€1991,€Ms.€¢Giovino£€filed€suit€in€the€Circuit€Court€forÏWilliamson€County€to€require€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€and€Eddie€¢Caples£,€the€director€ofÏthe€Twenty„First€Judicial€District€Drug€Task€Force,€to€return€the€money€inÏaccordance€with€Tenn.€R.€¢Crim£.€P.€41(f)€or€to€pay€it€into€court.€€She€alsoÏrequested€declaratory€relief€concerning€the€validity€of€the€seizure€and€theÏforfeiture€proceeding.€€Messrs.€¢Kincaid£€and€¢Caples£€denied€any€wrongdoingÏand€asserted€that€Ms.€¢Giovino£ððs€complaint€should€be€dismissed€because€herÏexclusive€remedy€was€the€administrative€claims€procedure€in€the€TennesseeÏDrug€Control€Act€and€because€Ms.€¢Giovino£€had€failed€to€exhaust€herÏadministrative€remedies.€€On€February€21,€1996,€the€trial€court€dismissed€Ms.Ï¢Giovino£ððs€complaint€because€she€had€not€exhausted€whatever€remedies€sheÏmight€have€had€before€the€Department€of€Safety.€€Ms.€¢Giovino£€perfected€thisÏappeal.ÌÌÌà@ àò òII.Ìà@ àòòDrug€Forfeiture€Proceedingsóóó óÌÌà àState€and€local€law€enforcement€officers€have€unquestioned€authority€toÏseize€money€used€in€an€illegal€drug€transaction.€€In€addition€to€using€theÏmoney€as€evidence€in€a€criminal€prosecution,€the€officers€may€also€commenceÏadministrative€forfeiture€proceedings€in€order€to€obtain€the€seized€money€toÏdefray€all€or€part€of€the€expenses€of€their€drug€enforcement€activities.€€òòSeeóóÍTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€53„11„451(a)(6)(A),€„451(d)(4)€(Supp.€1996).€€ProceedsÏfrom€forfeiture€proceedings€have€now€become€a€significant€source€of€fundingÏfor€undercover€drug€enforcement€activities€at€the€state€and€local€level.ÌÌà àPersons€adversely€affected€by€the€seizure€of€personal€property€incidentÏto€a€drug€arrest€have€two€remedies€for€recovering€the€property.€€First,€Tenn.ÏR.€¢Crim£.€P.€41(f)€permits€them€to€file€a€motion€in€the€court€where€theÏcriminal€action€is€pending€to€recover€the€property€because€the€search€andÏseizure€was€invalid€or€unlawful.€€Second,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(c)(1)Ï(Supp.€1996)€authorizes€them€to€file€a€claim€with€the€Department€of€Safety.€ÏThis€€administrative€claims€procedure€is€the€only€vehicle€for€recoveringÏconfiscated€property€available€to€persons€who€claim€to€have€an€innocentÏ¢possessory£€interest€in€the€property€and€who€are€not€challenging€the€legality€ofÏthe€search€or€seizure.ÌÌà àPersons€desiring€to€file€a€claim€with€the€Department€of€Safety€must€fileÏa€written€claim€within€thirty€(30)€days€after€receipt€of€the€notification€ofÏseizure,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(c)(1),€and€must€also€file€a€cost€bond€orÏaffidavit€of€¢indigency£€in€lieu€of€a€cost€bond.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(c)(2)€&€(3).€€Failure€to€satisfy€these€requirements€is€fatal€to€any€claim.€Ïòò¢Woodall£€v.€Lawson,óó€784€¢S.W.2d£€657,€659€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòJohnson€v.ÏRobertsóó,€638€¢S.W.2d£€401,€403€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„203€(1991)€requires€that€confiscated€property€be€summarily€forfeited€if€noÏone€files€a€timely€claim.€€ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.Ìà@ àòòExhaustion€of€Administrative€Remediesóóó óÌÌà àThe€courts€formulated€the€exhaustion€doctrine€to€provide€guidelines€forÏdetermining€when€a€judicial€remedy€should€supplant€an€administrative€one.€ÏòòSeeóó€2€Charles€A.€Koch,€Jr.,€òòAdministrative€Law€and€Practiceóó€ðð€10.22,€at€177Ï(1985).€€The€doctrineððs€dual€purposes€are€to€preserve€the€autonomy€ofÏadministrative€agencies€€and€to€promote€judicial€efficiency.€€òòMcCarthy€v.Ï¢Madigan£,óó€503€U.S.€140,€144„45,€112€S.€Ct.€1081,€1086€(1992).€€In€its€simplestÏform,€the€exhaustion€doctrine€provides€that€judicial€remedies€will€beÏconsidered€premature€until€a€litigant€has€pursued€and€exhausted€availableÏadministrative€remedies.€€òòJackson€v.€Swift€¢Eckrich£,€Inc.,óó€53€F.3d€1452,€1456Ï(8th€Cir.€1995);€òòElliott€v.€Equalization€Bd.€of€Carter€County,óó€213€Tenn.€33,Ï38,€372€¢S.W.2d£€181,€183€(1963);€òòTennessee€Enamel€Mfg.€Co.€v.€Hake,óó€183ÏTenn.€615,€620,€194€¢S.W.2d£€468,€470€(1946).ÌÌà àReflecting€a€deference€toward€administrative€proceedings,€the€fourÏprinciple€tenets€of€the€exhaustion€doctrine€include:ÌÓÓà8 àÚƒÚ1Ú  Ú.à0 àParties€should€be€discouraged€from€deliberately€bypassingÏor€interrupting€available€administrative€remedies;Û€ÛÌÌà8 àÚƒÚ2Ú  Ú.à0 àAdministrative€agencies€should€be€encouraged€to€applyÏtheir€expertise€and€discretion€to€correct€their€own€mistakes;Û€ÛÌÌà8 àÚƒÚ3Ú  Ú.à0 àParties€should€be€encouraged€to€facilitate€judicial€review€ofÏagency€decisions€by€developing€the€relevant€facts€andÏgenerating€a€proper€record€at€the€agency€level;€andÛ€ÛÌÌà8 àÚƒÚ4Ú  Ú.à0 àJudicial€economy€should€be€promoted€by€avoidingÏunnecessary€appeals€and€unnecessary€repetition€ofÏadministrative€and€judicial€fact„finding.Û€ÛÌÌÓ€ÓòòMontes€v.€Thornburgh,óó€919€F.2d€531,€537€(9th€Cir.€1990);€òò¢Andrade£€v.€¢Lauer£,óóÏ729€F.2d€1475,€1484€(D.C.€Cir.€1984).€€Thus,€subject€to€several€well„recognized€exceptions,¢× ƒ4 ××  ×£€the€courts€presume€that€a€litigant€should€first€pursueÏand€exhaust€available€administrative€remedies€and,€accordingly,€place€theÏburden€on€the€litigant€to€prove€why€it€should€be€permitted€to€pursue€a€judicial,Ïas€opposed€to€an€administrative,€remedy.ÌÌà àExhaustion€is€mandatory€only€when€required€by€statute.€€It€is€a€matterÏof€judicial€discretion€in€all€other€circumstances.€€òòReeves€v.€Olsen,óó€691€¢S.W.2d£Ï527,€530€(Tenn.€1985);€Kenneth€C.€Davis,€òòAdministrative€Law€for€theÏEightiesóó€ðð€26.1,€at€434€(1989).€€Accordingly,€courts€should€considerÏexhaustion€questions€on€a€case„by„case€basis€and€should€balance€the€respectiveÏinterests€of€the€administrative€agency€and€the€parties€in€light€of€the€exhaustionÏdoctrineððs€purposes€and€the€particular€administrative€process€involved.€ÏòòWeinberger€v.€¢Salfi£,€óó422€U.S.€749,€765,€95€S.€Ct.€2457,€2467€(1975);€òò¢McKart£Ïv.€United€States,óó€395€U.S.€185,€193,€89€S.€Ct.€1657,€1662€(1969).€€Courts€areÏunlikely€to€require€exhaustion€when€an€agency€is€causing€or€threatening€toÏcause€irreparable€injury€through€clearly€illegal€action.€€4€Kenneth€C.€Davis,ÏòòAdministrative€Law€Treatiseóó€ðð€26.1,€at€414€(2d€ed.€1983).ÌÌà àExhaustion€should€not€be€required€in€this€case€for€two€principal€reasons.€ÏFirst,€Ms.€¢Giovino£€did€not€file€her€suit€in€order€to€circumvent€availableÏadministrative€remedies.€€To€the€contrary,€she€filed€suit€seeking€judicialÏredress€for€being€improperly€denied€access€to€her€administrative€remedies.€ÏSecondly,€there€is€a€substantial€question€concerning€the€Department€of€SafetyððsÏpresent€ability€to€provide€Ms.€¢Giovino£€with€meaningful€relief.€€The€forfeitureÏproceedings€involving€the€$100,000€seized€from€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€have€alreadyÏbeen€concluded,€and€the€money€has€been€returned€to€Williamson€County.€€WeÏknow€of€no€statute€giving€the€Department€of€Safety€continuing€jurisdictionÏover€confiscated€personal€property€once€it€has€issued€a€final€forfeiture€orderÏand€returned€the€property€to€the€seizing€agency.€€Should€Ms.€Giovino€now€fileÏa€claim€with€the€Department€of€Safety,€she€will€be€confronted€with€argumentsÏthat€her€claim€is€not€timely€and€that€the€matter€has€been€finally€resolved.¢× ƒ5 ××  ×£ÌÌà àConsidering€Ms.€¢Giovino£ððs€complaint€at€this€time€will€not€interrupt€anyÏpending€administrative€forfeiture€proceedings€and€will€not€create€a€precedentÏthat€will€enable€other€claimants€to€circumvent€the€administrative€claimsÏprocess.€€The€complaint€raises€issues€of€law€that€do€not€require€any€specialÏadministrative€expertise€to€decide.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€dismissing€Ms.€¢Giovino£ððs€complaint€on€the€ground€that€she€had€failedÏto€exhaust€her€administrative€remedies€under€the€Tennessee€Drug€Control€Act.ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àò òòòAdequacy€of€the€Notice€of€Seizureóóó óÌÌà àTennessee€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€8€and€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€prohibit€theÏforfeiture€of€private€property€without€first€providing€a€hearing€to€those€withÏan€interest€in€the€property.€€òò¢Redd£€v.€Tennessee€¢Depððt£€of€Safety,óó€895€¢S.W.2d£Ï332,€334€(Tenn.€1995);€òòMerchants€Bank€v.€State,€óó567€¢S.W.2d£€476,€480€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1978).€€Adequate€notice€is€essential€to€a€fair€hearing,€òòIn€re€Riggs,óóÏ612€¢S.W.2d£€461,€465€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1980),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€450€U.S.€921Ï(1981),€because€affected€parties€cannot€intelligently€exercise€their€right€to€aÏhearing€without€it.€òòGreene€v.€Lindsey,óó€456€U.S.€444,€449,€102€S.€Ct.€1874,Ï1877€(1982);€òò¢Baggett£€v.€¢Baggett£,óó€541€¢S.W.2d£€407,€410€(Tenn.€1976).€€ÌÌà àAdequate€notice€must€be€more€than€a€mere€formality€or€gesture.€ÏòòBurden€v.€Burden,óó€44€Tenn.€App.€312,€319,€313€¢S.W.2d£€566,€570€(1957).€€InÏorder€to€satisfy€due€process€requirements,€the€notice€procedure€must€beÏreasonably€calculated€to€inform€all€interested€persons€of€the€pending€action.€ÏòòMennonite€Bd.€of€Missions€v.€Adams,óó€462€U.S.€791,€795,€103€S.€Ct.€2706,Ï2709€(1983);€òò¢Potts£€v.€Gibson,óó€225€Tenn.€321,€329,€469€¢S.W.2d£€130,€133Ï(1971).€€As€a€constitutional€minimum,€notice€by€mail€is€required€with€regardÏto€persons€whose€names€and€addresses€are€known€or€can€be€easily€ascertained.€ÏòòSchroeder€v.€City€of€New€York,óó€371€U.S.€208,€212„13,€83€S.€Ct.€279,€282Ï(1962);€òò¢Baggett£€v.€¢Baggett£,óó€541€¢S.W.2d£€at€410.€€Accordingly,€noticeÏprocedures€in€forfeiture€proceedings€like€this€one€should€reasonably€maximizeÏthe€likelihood€that€potential€claimants€will€receive€notice€of€the€proceeding.€Ïòò¢Redd£€v.€Tennessee€¢Depððt£€of€Safety,óó€€895€¢S.W.2d£€at€334„35;€òòBrown€v.ÍTennessee€¢Depððt£€of€Safety,€óóApp.€No.€¢01A01£„9102„CH„00043,€1992€WLÏ63444,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€1,€1992)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).ÌÌà àThe€officers€who€seized€the€$100,000€on€November€7,€1991,€knew€Mr.Ï¢Fogarty£ððs€name€and€address€as€soon€as€they€arrested€and€booked€him.€€ThreeÏweeks€later,€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€knew€that€Ms.€¢Giovino£€claimed€$75,000€of€theÏ$100,000€taken€from€Mr.€¢Fogarty£.€€Instead€of€providing€these€persons€withÏactual€notice€of€the€pending€forfeiture€proceedings€as€to€the€seized€money,Ï¢Messrs£.€¢Kincaid£€and€Luther€told€them€nothing,€relying€instead€on€the€fictionÏthat€Mr.€¢Kincaid£€was€the€owner€and€possessor€of€the€money.€€A€fairÏconclusion€to€be€drawn€from€these€circumstances€is€that€the€officers€intendedÏto€effect€a€forfeiture€of€the€funds€before€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€or€anyone€else€becameÏaware€of€the€pending€forfeiture€proceedings.ÌÌà àThe€notice€procedure€devised€by€Messrs.€¢Kincaid£€and€Luther€was€notÏreasonably€calculated€to€provide€potential€claimants€with€notice€of€theÏforfeiture€proceedings.€€If€anything,€it€was€a€clever€attempt€to€comply€with€theÏletter€but€not€the€spirit€of€the€notice€requirement€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(a)(1).€€Forfeiture€proceedings€must€comply€with€both€the€letter€and€theÏspirit€of€the€forfeiture€statutes.€€òò¢Redd£€v.€Tennessee€¢Depððt£€of€Safety,óó€895Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€335;€òòRange€Pontiac€Sales€Co.€v.€Dickinson,óó€195€Tenn.€228,€233,Ï258€¢S.W.2d£€770,€772€(1953);€òòHays€v.€Montague,óó€860€¢S.W.2d£€403,€406€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1993).€€Accordingly,€the€Commissioner€of€Safetyððs€December€3,Ï1991€order€forfeiting€the€$100,000€seized€from€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€is€invalid€becauseÏthe€notice€on€which€it€was€predicated€is€constitutionally€defective.ÌÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌÌà àMs.€¢Giovino£€was€entitled€to€a€declaratory€judgment€finding€(1)€that€sheÏand€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€were€deprived€of€fair€and€reasonable€notice€of€theÏadministrative€forfeiture€proceedings€involving€the€$100,000,€(2)€that€theÏCommissioner€of€Safetyððs€December€3,€1991€forfeiture€order€is€invalid,€andÏ(3)€that€Ms.€¢Giovino£€and€Mr.€¢Fogarty£€are€entitled€to€adequate€notice€and€anÏopportunity€to€submit€a€claim€for€all€or€any€portion€of€the€seized€money.€ÏAccordingly,€we€vacate€the€order€dismissing€Ms.€¢Giovino£ððs€€complaint€andÏremand€the€case€for€the€entry€of€an€order€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€TheÏorder€should€specifically€direct€the€defendants€to€provide€Ms.€¢Giovino£€andÏMr.€¢Fogarty£€with€the€notice€of€seizure€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(a)(1)€in€order€to€enable€them€to€file€a€timely€claim€in€accordance€withÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„201(c).€€We€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€jointly€andÏseverally€to€Barry€¢Kincaid£€and€Eddie€¢Caples£€for€which€execution,€ifÏnecessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌÌœCONCURS:›ÌÌœÌ________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.,ÌÌÌ________________________________›ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€œÌÌÌÇÑ ° ÑÑ X Ñà@ à