ÿWPC  …# VU>a %Ÿ 0(¥4Íáðw@ø 0l8 0D¤ 0Jè 0T2 0^† 0hä 0rL 0|¾ 0†: 0À 1uP U,Å 0dñ U,UU 6B)·DCà AM#U*p Bš"· D3ÙÉ v~Õ 0@SvÓ“ AOfƵ 0D{ D/¿ Bî˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX($¡¡DÒ x°°3|x? -e./0U1U23D4U5Ó€?((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌJune€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó(((('ÿÿdxd ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€#ôÔFormer€commissioner€Robert€Lawson€of€the€Tennessee€Department€of€SafetyÏentered€the€forfeiture€order;€however,€the€court€automatically€substituted€theÏpresent€commissioner,€Michael€C.€Greene,€in€this€action€pursuant€to€TennesseeÏRule€of€Civil€Procedure€25.04.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÓ ` Ü‚Xœ ’X ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€nuXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  Ñ›BILLY€L.€GORDON,à à)Ìà àà à)ÌÓ#` Ü‚Xœôx‘X#Óà àPetitioner/Appellant,à à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà à)à à01„A„01„9511„CH„00522Ìv.à àà à)Ìà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌMICHAEL€C.€GREENE,€Commissionerà à)à àNo.€94„3552„IÌÙ€€ÙœßL€&)%;+'h|}` ç `€€Lß›of€the€Tennessee€Department€ofà à)ÌSafety,à à)Ìà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€IRVIN€H.€KILCREASE,€JR.,€CHANCELLORÌÓ ` Ü‚XœÈ“X ÓÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÔ€#XÔGERALD€C.€RUSSELLÌ125€E.€Broadway€AvenueÌMaryville,€Tennessee€€37804Ìà àATTORNEY€FOR€PETITIONER/APPELLANTÌÌÌCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌREBECCA€LYFORDÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37243„0494Ìà àATTORNEYS€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€#¼ÔÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÓ  ÓÓÓòòÔ€#°ÔOÔ€#¼Ô€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÓ#` Ü` ä œÈ“X#ÓóóÔ€#XÔà àPetitioner,€Billy€Gordon,€appeals€the€chancellor's€judgmentÏdismissing€his€petition€for€review€filed€pursuant€to€the€UniformÏAdministrative€Procedures€Act.€€Petitioner€sought€review€of€aÏforfeiture€order€entered€by€the€Commissioner€of€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Safety€("Commissioner").× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€order€forfeited€a€1989ÏCorvette€automobile€seized€from€Beate€Kittel„Glass€under€theÏTennessee€Drug€Control€Act€("TDCA").€€The€pertinent€facts€are€asÏfollows.€€ÌÌà àOn€25€July€1993,€Officer€Shawn€Hegna€of€the€KnoxvilleÏPolice€Department€arrested€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€for€driving€under€theÏinfluence.€€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€was€driving€the€Corvette€which€is€theÏsubject€of€this€case.€€During€an€inventory€search,€the€officerÍfound€sixty„seven€ten„milligram€Valium€pills€for€which€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€did€not€have€a€prescription.€€When€the€officer€asked€Ms.ÏKittel„Glass€who€owned€the€Corvette,€she€told€him€that€she€ownedÏthe€car€"outright,€it€was€paid€for."€€The€officer€ran€a€VIN€checkÏand€found€that€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€owned€the€Corvette.€€Thereafter,Ïthe€officers€seized€the€car€under€the€TDCA.ÌÌà àOn€13€August€1993,€Ms.€Kittel„Glass'€attorney€filed€a€claimÏto€the€Corvette.€€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€withdrew€this€claim€nine€monthsÏlater.€€Approximately€seven€months€after€officers€seized€the€car,Ïpetitioner€filed€a€claim€asserting€that€he€owned€the€Corvette.€€ÌÌà àOn€9€May€1994,€an€Administrative€Law€Judge€("ALJ")€held€aÏhearing€on€petitioner's€claim.€€Although€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€did€notÏtestify€at€the€administrative€hearing,€petitioner€testified€œthatÏhe›€purchased€the€Corvette€from€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€prior€to€theÏseizure.€€As€payment,€he€claimed€that€he€gave€her€a€$5,000.00Ïcashier's€check€and€did€$9,000.00€worth€of€work.€€Ms.€Kittel„GlassÏsigned€a€used€car€order€which€evidenced€the€sale€and€which€listedÏa€sale€price€of€$15,000.00.ÌÌà àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€ALJ€issued€an€initial€orderÏfinding:€€1)€the€State€proved€the€Corvette€was€used€to€transportÏor€to€facilitate€the€transportation€of€a€controlled€substance€inÏviolation€of€the€TDCA;€2)€petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€he€hadÏan€interest€in€the€Corvette€which€he€acquired€in€good€faith;€andÍ3)€petitioner's€claim€was€not€timely.€€The€ALJ€accordinglyÏdismissed€petitioner's€claim€and€forfeited€the€Corvette.ÌÌà àPetitioner€appealed€the€initial€order€to€the€commissioner.€ÏThe€commissioner€entered€a€final€order€adopting€the€ALJ'sÏfindings.€€As€a€result,€the€commissioner€ordered€the€CorvetteÏforfeited€to€the€seizing€agency,€the€Knoxville€Police€Department.€ÏPetitioner€timely€filed€a€petition€for€review€pursuant€to€theÏUniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act.ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€petition,€the€chancellor€found€that€theÏcommissioner€erred€in€finding€that€the€claim€was€not€timely.€€HeÏalso€found,€however,€that€substantial€and€material€evidenceÏsupported€the€commissioner's€finding€that€petitioner€was€not€theÏowner€of€the€Corvette.€€The€chancellor€dismissed€the€petition,€andÏpetitioner€filed€a€timely€appeal€to€this€court.€€œÌ›Ìà àThe€issue€on€appeal€to€the€chancery€court€and€this€court€isÏwhether€the€commissioner's€determination€is€supported€by€evidenceÏ"which€is€both€substantial€and€material€in€the€light€of€the€entireÏrecord."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)(5)(1991);€ò òòòHumana€ofÏTennessee€v.€Tennessee€Health€Facilities€Comm'nó óóó,€551€S.W.2dÏ664,€667€(Tenn.€1977).ÌÌà àSubstantial€and€material€evidence€is€"'such€relevantÏevidence€as€a€reasonable€mind€might€accept€[as€adequate]€toÍsupport€a€rational€conclusion€and€such€as€to€furnish€a€reasonablyÏsound€basis€for€the€action€under€consideration.'"€€ò òòòSouthern€Ry.ÏCo.€v.€State€Bd.€of€Equalizationó óóó,€682€S.W.2d€196,€199€(Tenn.Ï1984)(quoting€ò òòòPace€v.€Garbage€Disposal€Distóóó ó.ò òòò,€óóó ó54€Tenn.€App.Ï263ò òòò,€óóó ó267,€390€S.W.2d€461,€463€(1965)).€€Substantial€evidenceÏ"requires€something€less€than€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€butÏmore€than€a€scintilla€or€glimmer."€€ò òòòWayne€County€v.€TennesseeÏSolid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.ó óóó,€756€S.W.2d€274,€280€(Tenn.ÏApp.€1988)(citation€omitted).€€Neither€the€trial€court€nor€thisÏcourt€is€"allowed€to€weigh€the€factual€evidence€and€substituteÏ[its]€judgment€and€conclusions€for€that€of€the€administrativeÏagency,€even€if€the€proof€were€to€support€a€differentÏdetermination€than€that€of€the€agency."€€ò òòòEstate€of€Street€v.ÏState€Bd.€of€Equalizationó óóó,€812€S.W.2d€583,€587€(Tenn.€App.Ï1990)(citation€omitted).€€The€agency's€findings€must€stand€ifÏsupported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€ò òòòCF€Indus.€v.ÏTennessee€Public€Serv.€Comm'nó óóó,€599€S.W.2d€536,€540€(Tenn.Ï1980).€€ÌÌà àThe€state€has€the€burden€of€proving€that€a€person€used€aÏvehicle€in€violation€of€the€TDCA;€however,€the€claimant€to€aÏseized€vehicle€has€the€burden€of€proving€his€interest€in€theÏvehicle€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€53„11„201(f)(1).€ÏThat€section€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:€€ÌÓÓà8 àWhenever,€in€any€proceeding€under€this€section,€aÏclaim€is€filed€for€any€property€seized,€as€providedÏin€this€section,€by€an€owner€or€other€personÍasserting€the€interest€to€the€owner,€theÏcommissioner€shall€not€allow€the€claim€unless€andÏuntil€the€claimant€proves€that:€(A)€the€claimantÏhas€an€interest€in€such€property€which€the€claimantÏacquired€in€good€faith€.€.€.€.€€ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ53„11„201(f)(1)(1991).Ì›œÌ›ÌÌÓÓà àPetitioner€contends€the€commissioner€erred€in€finding€thatÏhe€had€not€satisfied€his€burden€of€proof.€€For€petitioner€toÏprevail,€he€must€establish€there€was€no€substantial€or€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€findings€that€petitioner€was€not€aÏcredible€witness€and€that€his€claim€of€ownership€was€unbelievable.€ÏRespondent€argued€that€petitioner€cannot€satisfy€this€burdenÏbecause€all€the€evidence€supported€the€commissioner's€findings.€ÌÌà àThe€evidence€in€the€record€established€that€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€told€the€arresting€and€seizing€officer€that€the€automobileÏwas€hers.€€The€car€was€titled€in€her€name€and€remained€in€her€nameÏfor€approximately€one€year€after€the€date€on€which€petitionerÏclaimed€to€have€purchased€the€car.€€Moreover,€petitioner€purchasedÏthe€$5,000.00€cashier's€check,€which€he€allegedly€gave€to€Ms.ÏKittel„Glass,€one€month€before€the€alleged€sale€of€the€Corvette.€ÏAdditionally,€petitioner€did€not€inquire€about€the€car€nor€did€heÏfile€a€claim€or€do€anything€to€recover€the€car€for€some€sevenÏmonths€after€officers€seized€the€car.€€His€only€explanation€forÏthis€lack€of€interest€was€he€"didn't€really€realize€it€was€thisÏserious."ÌÌà àThere€is€also€evidence€that€the€signature€on€the€used€carÏorder€and€the€signature€on€the€document€withdrawing€œMs.€Kittel„Glass›€claim€to€the€Corvette€are€different.€€The€signature€on€theÏwithdrawal€was€hyphenated€and€contained€dots€over€the€two€s's.€ÏThe€signature€on€the€used€car€order€was€neither€hyphenated€norÏwere€there€dots.€€Moreover,€the€g€in€the€withdrawal€was€printed,Ïbut€the€g€in€the€used€car€order€was€written€in€script.ÌÌà àIn€addition,€the€terms€in€the€used€car€order€were€differentÏthan€those€described€by€petitioner.€€According€to€petitioner,€heÏpaid€a€total€€$14,000.00€for€the€car.€€The€used€car€order,Ïhowever,€listed€the€sale€price€as€$15,000.00.€€Also,€the€cashier'sÏcheck,€which€petitioner€asserted€was€the€equity€referred€to€in€theÏused€car€order,€was€for€$5,000.00,€not€$6,000.00€as€stated€in€theÏused€car€order.ÌÌà àFinally,€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€drove€the€car€whenever€sheÏwished.€€She€even€drove€it€from€Tennessee€to€Florida€on€oneÏoccasion.€€She€did€not€have€to€ask€petitioner€for€permission€toÏdrive€the€car.€€Petitioner€testified€that€he€was€married€to€aÏcousin€of€Ms.€Kittel„Glass;€however,€in€a€cover€letter€to€the€ALJÏhe€referred€to€her€as€his€sister„in„law.€€Petitioner€had€workedÏfor€Ms.€Kittel„Glass€for€two€or€three€years€before€the€seizure.ÌÌà àWhile€another€trier€of€fact€may€have€determined€this€issueÏdifferently,€this€court€is€not€permitted€to€weigh€the€factualÍevidence€and€substitute€its€judgments€and€conclusions€for€those€ofÏthe€commissioner.€€ò òòòEstate€of€Street,ó óóó€812€S.W.2d€at€587;€ò òòòseeÏalso€œó óóóTenn.€Code€›Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h)(5)(1991).€€The€concurrentÏfinding€by€the€commissioner€and€the€chancellor€that€petitioner€didÏnot€own€the€Corvette€is€binding€on€this€court.€€œò òòòBeare›€Co.€v.ÏTennessee€Dep't€of€Revenueó óóó,€858€S.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.€1993).€ÏPetitioner€had€the€burden€of€proving€his€ownership€interest€in€theÏautomobile.€€There€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€that€heÏfailed€to€satisfy€this€burden.ÌÌà àWe€have€considered€the€two€issues€raised€by€the€respondent;Ïhowever,€because€of€our€holding€under€the€issue€raised€by€theÏpetitioner,€we€pretermit€respondent's€issues.ÌÌà àIt€results€that€the€judgment€of€the€chancellor€in€affirmingÏthe€commissioner's€order€is€affirmed€with€costs€on€appeal€assessedÏto€the€petitioner/appellant,€Billy€L.€Gordon.€€The€cause€is€œÌÌÌremanded›€to€the€chancery€court€for€any€further€necessaryÏproceedings.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ