Opinion
1 CA-CV 11-0796
03-12-2013
STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. THOMAS C. HORNE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. SASKIA ANTHONY; GREGORY GLASS; and VANCE EDWARDS, Claimants/Appellants.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP by Booker Travis Evans, Jr. Alexandra Mijares Nash Attorneys for Claimants/Appellants Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General by Aaron S. Ludwig, Assistant Attorney General Katrin M. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not for Publication -
Rule 28, Arizona Rules of
Civil Appellate Procedure)
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
Cause No. CV2007-009061
The Honorable Linda A. Akers, Judge
AFFIRMED
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
by Booker Travis Evans, Jr.
Alexandra Mijares Nash
Attorneys for Claimants/Appellants
Phoenix Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General
by Aaron S. Ludwig, Assistant Attorney General
Katrin M. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee
Phoenix KESSLER, Judge ¶1 Claimants/Appellants Saskia Anthony ("S. Anthony"), Gregory Glass ("Glass"), and Vance Edwards ("Edwards") (collectively "Appellants") appeal from the superior court's order directing the forfeiture of three vehicles. We affirm based upon the Appellants' untimely and deficient answer to the complaint, and the evidence supporting probable cause.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Factual history
¶2 A tip from an anonymous caller on April 24, 2005, triggered the Chandler Police Department's investigation of Levin White ("White"). The caller reported that a cocaine and marijuana transaction, under White's direction, would occur at an apartment complex that day. ¶3 On May 19, 2005, Chandler police officers executed a search warrant at the Chandler residence of White and his wife, Kellie Anthony ("K. Anthony") (collectively the "Racketeering Defendants"). The officers recovered $353,565 in cash from behind a small refrigerator and $100,000 in shrink-wrapped cash in a closet, all of which triggered a positive alert from a narcotics detection dog. Also found were usable quantities of marijuana and marijuana residue on plastic bags. Officers retrieved multiple drivers' licenses bearing White's likeness, and additional identification cards with Evelyn Williams's photograph, but bearing different names. A closet yielded three firearms, including two nine-millimeter, semiautomatic weapons, along with ammunition and a purchase receipt in K. Anthony's name. ¶4 The officers also found several vehicles, cashiers and money order receipts, furs, and jewelry at the residence. White told an officer that he had bought the vehicles legally and for half of what they were worth. When asked why he held no property in his name, White responded that he did it "to keep 'you guys outta my business.'" ¶5 Among the vehicles seized from the Chandler residence were a black 2001 Mercedes Benz S600, a white 2000 Jaguar S-Type, and a blue 1996 Chevy Impala SS (collectively "the Vehicles"). Registration records indicated that the Vehicles' respective owners were Appellants Edwards, Glass, and S. Anthony, K. Anthony's sister. ¶6 Officers later learned that the Riverside California Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") had been investigating White for drug trafficking for years. That investigation yielded evidence that White was orchestrating cocaine trafficking, and that he usually used semi-tractor trailers to transport the drugs between California, Arizona, and Iowa. Other evidence indicated that White had used Evelyn Williams to recruit drivers, and had received K. Anthony's help in laundering his proceeds through businesses, friends, and family members.
Following up on evidence, officers later made contact with the property manager of an apartment complex for an apartment at which White met with a business partner and stored marijuana. The police discovered that the apartment was leased to Evelyn Williams under the alias Akeyla Moore. The police searched the apartment after they were informed that the tenants moved out and they found a small amount of marijuana, a receipt bearing White's name, and cellophane wrap.
II. Procedural history
¶7 On June 21, 2007, the Racketeering Defendants filed a claim entitled "Claimants Levin White and Kellie Diane Anthony's Verified Claim." The claim was signed by the Racketeering Defendants' counsel and contained no verification by either of the Racketeering Defendants. The claim did append affidavits executed by the Appellants. ¶8 The claim states that the Vehicles "are not the property of Claimants [Racketeering Defendants], but are lodged with them." According to the affidavits, Appellants owned the Vehicles, the Vehicles were not acquired with funds derived from illegal activity, neither of the Racketeering Defendants had provided funds to acquire the Vehicles, and the Vehicles should be returned to the Racketeering Defendants for safekeeping. ¶9 On July 19, 2007, following the issuance of a notice of pending forfeiture, Plaintiff/Appellee the State of Arizona ("State") filed a complaint for an order of forfeiture against the Racketeering Defendants and scores of other defendants for in personam and in rem forfeiture in connection with racketeering activity. The complaint named both the Racketeering Defendants and the Appellants as parties "in that they have timely filed claims pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311." ¶10 The complaint seeks in rem racketeering forfeiture under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 13-2314(G) (2010) and pursuant to the procedures outlined in A.R.S. §§ 13-4301 through -4311 (2010). It alleges that the Racketeering Defendants participated in or assisted a criminal syndicate; engaged in money laundering; produced, sold, or transported drugs; and engaged in various preparatory offenses. See A.R.S. §§ 13-2308 (2010), -2317 (2010), -3405 (Supp. 2012), - 3408 (2010); A.R.S. §§ 13-1001 through -1004 (2010); A.R.S. § 13-2301(D) (2010). Specifically, the State claims that the Racketeering Defendants "laundered the proceeds from illegal drug trafficking activity through the purchase of vehicles and other items of personal property." ¶11 The State mailed the complaint with a waiver of service form to counsel for Appellants. That form stated that if the Appellants waived service, they would have sixty days from August 29, 2007, which is October 29, 2007, to file an answer. Counsel for Appellants signed the form. White, K. Anthony, Kellie A. Consulting LLC and Milestone Trust filed an answer on October 9, 2007, signed by counsel but not verified by the Racketeering Defendants or Appellants. The State moved for entry of judgment on the basis that the Appellants had not filed an answer, and the Racketeering Defendants had filed answers that were neither verified nor compliant with A.R.S. § 13-4311(G). ¶12 In response, the Racketeering Defendants filed a new verified answer on November 8, 2007, that included: (1) verifications by White and by K. Anthony both on behalf of the named defendants and on behalf of Appellants; and (2) Appellants' affidavits. The answer states:
Saskia Anthony, Gregory Glass, and Vance Edwards [Appellants] did not file Notices of Claim in this action. Rather, each filed an affidavit relinquishing their interests in the property to Kellie D. Anthony. These affidavits further allowed Ms. Anthony to act on their behalf, thus, Ms. Anthony files this Verified Answer. The affidavits of each are attached hereto as Exhibit A.The Racketeering Defendants claim that the amended answer cured any defect. ¶13 Extensive litigation ensued. The superior court upheld the Racketeering Defendants' verified answer and claim, despite the State's objections and motions to strike. These rulings contained no determinations as to whether Appellants were parties. ¶14 During discovery, Appellants failed to definitively answer questions about their Vehicles' purchase dates, the sellers, and the purchase prices. Attorneys for the parties conferred and filed a joint status report with the new superior court judge. The Racketeering Defendants asserted in that document that they are "not parties to this action but are merely witnesses who would testify that they purchased the [V]ehicles with untainted funds and that they authorized White and/or [K.] Anthony to possess and control them." Appellants' counsel stated that he would not participate in resolution of discovery objections "because he did not believe these persons were parties and that he did not represent them." ¶15 At an ensuing status conference, the State cited A.R.S. § 13-4301(5) and (4) as authority that the Racketeering Defendants qualified as neither parties nor claimants with respect to the Vehicles. The Racketeering Defendants' counsel told the superior court that Appellants "have not, to date, answered." Judge Grant agreed with the State that Appellants were "appropriate parties" to the litigation as of that date. Counsel for the Racketeering Defendants told the court that he knew that he would be representing Appellants. ¶16 The superior court accordingly ordered Appellants to "file responsive pleadings within the time limits set forth in the Rules." Appellants failed to file by the deadline under A.R.S. § 13-4311(G), and instead submitted motions to dismiss on April 2, 2009. The State responded and applied for an order of forfeiture based upon the Appellants' failure to comply with the statutory requirements. ¶17 On April 30, 2009, Appellants filed a verified answer, although only Glass submitted a concurrent verification. The State moved to strike the verified answer based on the failure to comply with A.R.S. § 13-4311(E) and (G), and it supplied a supplemental affidavit containing facts concerning the Vehicles. ¶18 The superior court then denied Appellants' motions to dismiss made pursuant to Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6). The court scheduled argument on the motion to compel and other pending motions for March 12, 2010. ¶19 At the hearing, the parties presented arguments on the State's effort to compel discovery, the motion to dismiss Appellants' answers, and the application for order of forfeiture. The superior court deemed the arrangement with the Vehicles a "sham," and stated that the three Appellants did not own the Vehicles and did not need to be "cluttering up this litigation." The superior court also granted the forfeiture application in a minute entry order. ¶20 At a joint status conference, Judge Akers, newly assigned to the case, ordered the State to supply the proposed form of order. The State complied, and the superior court signed a Rule 54(b) order of forfeiture. Appellants timely appealed. ¶21 We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003) and -2101(A)(1) (Supp. 2012).
We cite the current version of the applicable statute because no revisions material to this decision have since occurred.
According to section 13-4301(5), "[a] person who holds property for the benefit of or as agent or nominee for another is not an owner." Thus, an owner is a person who holds a legal or equitable interest in property. To qualify as an interest holder, one must be "a person in whose favor there is a security interest or who is the beneficiary of a perfected encumbrance, pertaining to an interest in property." A.R.S. § 13-4301(4).
DISCUSSION
I. The superior court properly struck Appellants' answer and granted the State's application to proceed with forfeiture based upon Appellants' failure to comply with A.R.S. § 13-4311(G).
¶22 To preserve a claim to property seized for forfeiture, a party must file a claim and an answer pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-4311(D)-(E) and (G), respectively. See A.R.S. § 13-4311(E) (requiring a person claiming an interest to file a verified claim setting forth among other things, the date and circumstances of the acquisition of the property and the reason why the property is not subject to forfeiture); A.R.S. § 13-4311(G) (permitting the state to proceed with forfeiture with ten days' notice to any person who timely filed a claim but did not file an answer; claimant has twenty days to file an answer after filing claim); State v. Jackson, 210 Ariz. 466, 471-72, ¶¶ 25-28, 113 P.3d 112, 117-18 (App. 2005) (holding that appellant had an obligation to file an answer under the statutory scheme and his failure to do so permitted the state to proceed with forfeiture); accord State v. $5,500 in U.S. Currency, 169 Ariz. 156, 159, 817 P.2d 960, 963 (App. 1991). ¶23 The parties have extensively litigated whether the filings constituted claims and who was responsible for filing them. Assuming, without deciding, that the claim requirement was met as to Appellants, we focus our attention on whether or not Appellants complied with the answer requirement once the superior court determined that they were parties on March 3, 2009. We review de novo the superior court's interpretation of the relevant statutes and court rules. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1279 (2012). ¶24 According to A.R.S. § 13-4311(B), the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure govern forfeiture proceedings unless a statute provides different procedures. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311(G), Appellants had twenty days from the March 3, 2009 hearing to file the answer. Instead, they submitted motions to dismiss on April 2, 2009. Notwithstanding Appellants' contrary arguments, the failure to timely file these motions constituted a default and deprived Appellants of an extended time to answer. See A.R.S. § 13-4311(G); accord Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A). ¶25 According to A.R.S. § 13-4311(G): "If no proper answer is timely filed, the attorney for the state shall proceed as provided in §§ 13-4314 and 13-4315 with ten days' notice to any person who has timely filed a claim that has not been stricken by the court." The State applied for an order of forfeiture based upon the Appellants' failure to timely respond and, under these circumstances, the superior court properly granted it. ¶26 On appeal, Appellants argue that: (1) they are entitled to a ten-day grace period to file an answer following the State's filing of its application for an order of forfeiture; (2) their prior filings should be construed as answers; (3) they are entitled to an extension of time based upon the waiver of service they executed in 2007; and (4) the State has waived its right to object. We disagree.
The State's complaint acknowledges that it received timely claims from Appellants.
We note that Judge Grant initially concluded the Appellants were appropriate parties as of March 3, 2009, and required them to file responsive pleadings. After the Appellants filed an answer, Judge Grant concluded the arrangement with the Vehicles was a "sham," stated the three Appellants did not own the Vehicles and did not need to be "cluttering up this litigation." We see no inconsistency between these two statements. The earlier statement was based on the parties' positions and the dispute about discovery during the March 3, 2009 hearing. Over a year later, once the superior court had seen the answer, the motion to dismiss the answer, and the probable cause evidence, it was free to determine that the Appellants' claims of ownership of the Vehicles were a sham even though they were formally proper parties.
A. A.R.S. § 13-4311(G) does not supply a ten-day grace period. ¶27 Appellants contend that, although they failed to file within the twenty-day period after March 3, 2009, their answer is timely because a ten-day grace period is provided under A.R.S. § 13-4311(G). Although A.R.S. § 13-4314 may be "the functional equivalent of a default judgment," A.R.S. § 13-4311(G) provides the controlling procedures. Jackson, 210 Ariz. at 469, ¶ 13, 113 P.3d at 115. Subsection (G) requires the state to proceed with an application for forfeiture in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 13-4314 and -4315 with ten days' notice. The forfeiture application is filed "with" the notice, not after the notice is given. A.R.S. § 13-4311(G). ¶28 Nowhere in the statute is there a reference to a grace period. Jackson states that the failure to timely answer "triggered the provision that the state 'shall proceed as provided in §§ 13-4314 and -4315.'" 210 Ariz. at 471, ¶ 22, 113 P.3d at 117 (quoting A.R.S. § 13-4311(G)). Jackson goes on to state that "the plain language of § 13-4311(G) expressly provides that §§ 13-4314 and -4315 apply even though a timely claim has been filed so long as a timely answer has not been filed." Id. at ¶ 24. ¶29 Jackson notes that the Appellant failed "to answer the state's complaint after receipt of the ten-day letter specified in § 13-4311(G)," therefore invoking the default mechanisms. Id. at ¶ 25. To the extent that Jackson suggests that a filing within the ten-day period would preserve the answer, we reject that assertion. ¶30 As the State points out, the ten-day notice period serves various purposes that have no connection to a grace period. These purposes include: (1) notification of the impending order of default to which the defendant may take an appeal or file a Rule 60(c) motion; (2) notification to non-defaulting claimants who wish to appear and protect their interest in the property; and (3) notification to injured claimants who are not required to file answers pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4311(I), and to claimants whose interests are undetermined but exempt under A.R.S. § 13-4314(C) so that they may take appropriate action to protect whatever interests they might have.
B. The prior filings are not functional equivalents of answers. ¶31 Equally unavailing is Appellant's argument that the Racketeering Defendants' prior filings should be deemed the functional equivalent of answers, or that their execution of a waiver of service of summons extended the time to answer by sixty days. Appellants' counsel admitted on March 3, 2009 that they had not filed answers and the record shows no answers filed by them. Moreover, to accept Appellants' argument, we would have to ignore the statutory scheme requiring the filing of an answer after the filing of the complaint. Consequently, we reject Appellants' argument that any prior filings satisfied the answer requirement. ¶32 As to the waiver of service, Rule 4.1(c)(3) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[a] defendant that, before being served with process timely returns a waiver is not required to serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the date on which the request for waiver of service was sent." Because the sixty days had expired, the rule is of no use to Appellants. In any event, the Racketeering Defendants had signed the waiver of service form in September 2007 and benefitted from the waiver by obtaining additional time to file an answer until October 29, 2007, pursuant to Rule 4.1(c)(3). Appellants cannot successfully claim another extension beyond that date.
C. The State preserved its right to challenge the answer. ¶33 Nor can we agree that the State has waived its right to challenge Appellants' answer. This is not a case akin to State ex rel. Horne v. Campos, 226 Ariz. 424, 430, ¶ 24, 250 P.3d 201, 207 (App. 2011), in which the court found that, after waiting three years to object to the party's failure to file a claim, the state had waived its right to raise the issue. Here, the State has consistently maintained that the Racketeering Defendants could not litigate Appellants' ownership claims for them. Campos does not apply.
II. Probable cause supported the entry of the forfeiture order.
A. The detectives' evidence satisfied the State's burden of proof. ¶34 Appellants additionally challenge the probable cause determination. Before granting a forfeiture application, the superior court must make determinations concerning notice, jurisdiction, and facts sufficient to establish probable cause for forfeiture. A.R.S. § 13-4314(A). We review the probable cause determinations in forfeiture actions de novo. In re U.S. Currency in the Amount of $315,900.00, 183 Ariz. 208, 211, 902 P.2d 351, 354 (App. 1995). We will not disturb the superior court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. ¶35 To obtain a forfeiture of property based on drug-related racketeering, the State must show probable cause to believe the property is a proceed of or facilitated a drug sale based on all the evidence at the time of the forfeiture hearing. In re $24,000 in U.S. Currency, 217 Ariz. 199, 200, ¶¶ 9-10, 171 P.3d 1240, 1243 (App. 2007). To meet that burden, the State must show reasonable grounds for its belief "supported by more than a mere suspicion, but less than prima facie proof." Id. at ¶ 11 (citation and internal quotation marks deleted). This requires some credible evidence supporting the allegation. Id. at ¶ 13 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Notwithstanding Appellants' claims, the State was not also required to prove in this in rem proceeding that Appellants engaged in wrongdoing or that White had been convicted of a racketeering offense. ¶36 White's statements during the search indicated that he had purchased the Vehicles but had no property in his name "to keep 'you guys outta my business.'" Affidavits from two police detectives further supported probable cause to believe that the Racketeering Defendants engaged in such racketeering conduct as the sale of prohibited drugs and money laundering under A.R.S. § 13-2301(D)(4)(b)(xi), (xxvi), and the Vehicles were forfeitable because they had been acquired and maintained with racketeering proceeds under A.R.S. § 13-2314(G)(1) and/or as substitute assets for assets which are subject to, but no longer available for, forfeiture under A.R.S. § 13-4313(A). ¶37 One detective's affidavit recounts the evidence that White had not reported wage income in Arizona or California between 1998 and 2005. K. Anthony likewise had reported no income in 2003, and then earned $14,683 in 2004 and $39,742.01 in 2005. ¶38 White claimed to earn money from investments with Primex Technology, and K. Anthony claimed earnings of $681,797.50 in real estate transactions. As the affidavit points out, the Racketeering Defendants' assets, expenditures, and expenses exceeded their documented income by more than one hundred thousand dollars. ¶39 Another detective supplied an affidavit focusing on the Vehicles' relationship to the case. We review the evidence for each vehicle.
1. 2000 Jaguar-S Type ¶40 According to one detective, police had stopped this vehicle in Inglewood, California during 2002 when it was driven by then-narcotics fugitive Trent Woodmore. At that time, the vehicle was registered to Sabrina Anthony. Sabrina Anthony told police that White, her brother-in-law, had asked to have the vehicle registered in her name, but that she was not the owner and had never driven it. Trent Woodmore told police that White had loaned him the car while Woodmore was on the run. ¶41 The record also indicates that Sabrina Anthony contacted White after the interview, and California DMV records reflect that she subsequently transferred the Jaguar to Glass, who had served a five-year sentence for possession of marijuana for sale. Meanwhile, a check of records maintained by Penske Jaguar for 2003 lists the Jaguar's owners as K. Anthony and "Mark Smith," an alias used by White. In responding to the State's interrogatories, however, Glass states that he has been the sole title holder since the vehicle's purchase and pays for the repairs, although he could not say where he purchased the vehicle or from whom.
2. 2001 Mercedes Benz S600 ¶42 This car is registered to Edwards, who claims that he stores it with the Racketeering Defendants. Edwards also has stated that he rebuilt the vehicle as a salvage car intending for White to sell it, but no salvage license is of record. Edwards claims to insure the vehicle through Geico, but supplied no proof of a policy. ¶43 Although Edwards told the State that no work had been done on the car, 2004 records from Penske Motor Cars indicate that the Racketeering Defendants had brought the Mercedes in for thousands of dollars in repairs and maintenance. They both represented that they were its owners.
3. 1996 Chevrolet Impala SS ¶44 S. Anthony's affidavit states that she chooses to lodge this car with the Racketeering Defendants because she lives in a multi-unit complex. According to S. Anthony, she bought the Impala from White, but she does not recall what she paid for it or when. S. Anthony also stated that she did not know how much she pays for the Impala's registration and insurance premiums. ¶45 S. Anthony's claim that there were no significant repair issues with the vehicle is belied by service records. White paid $1137 to have the transmission rebuilt in April 2005 and paid for other servicing and welding in 2001 and 2004. Moreover, White drove the Impala to meet with a person at a point when wiretap records indicate the pair were negotiating a narcotics deal. ¶46 Appellants Glass and Edwards responded with additional evidence, none of it verified. It included the title document to the Jaguar. Edwards provided an automobile insurance policy purporting to show that he was paying for the Mercedes Benz titled in his name, although the State contends that the VIN numbers did not match and the insurance company was not the one he had previously identified. ¶47 Under the totality of the circumstances, the evidence establishes the probability that: (1) the Racketeering Defendants engaged in racketeering conduct, involving the prohibited sale of drugs and money laundering, under A.R.S. § 13-2301(D)(4)(b)(xi), (xxvi); and (2) the Vehicles were forfeitable as having been maintained with the proceeds of racketeering conduct under A.R.S. § 13-2314(G)(1), and/or as substitute assets for assets subject to forfeiture that are no longer available for forfeiture under A.R.S. § 13-4313(A).
B. There is no evidence that Judge Akers failed to review the record before granting the order. ¶48 In the forfeiture order, Judge Akers affirmed that the notice, jurisdiction, and probable cause requirements for forfeiture are satisfied. Appellants nevertheless argue that Judge Akers acted without first reviewing the record. They claim that Judge Akers admitted to simply adopting statements made by Judge Grant. ¶49 Appellants fail to cite record evidence for this contention, and therefore, we disregard it. See ARCAP 13(a)(6) (an argument shall contain citations to the parts of the record relied upon); Prairie State Bank v. I.R.S. , 155 Ariz. 219, 221 n.1A, 745 P.2d 966, 968 n.1A (App. 1987) (declining to consider assertions unsupported by record evidence). Furthermore, because Appellants have failed to supply a transcript of that hearing, we assume that the record supports the superior court's actions. See ARCAP 11(b)(1) (imposing the burden on the appellant to supply relevant transcripts); Johnson v. Elson, 192 Ariz. 486, 489, ¶ 11, 967 P.2d 1022, 1025 (App. 1998) (presuming that the unproduced transcripts support the superior court's ruling).
III. The superior court's decisions to strike Appellants' answer and label their vehicle arrangement a "sham" did not deprive Appellants of due process.
¶50 Appellants also challenge the superior court's decision at the March 12, 2010 proceeding to strike their answer and refer to their position as a "sham," and to assert that Appellants did not own the Vehicles without providing an evidentiary hearing. Appellants contend that the court consequently deprived them of due process. ¶51 By prior order, Appellants' counsel received notice that all motions would be considered at the hearing. At that time, the State's motion to strike Appellant's answer and application for the order of forfeiture were pending. ¶52 In any proceeding under the forfeiture statutes, each Appellant has the burden to establish, by the preponderance of the evidence, that he or she was the owner or an interest holder "before other evidence is taken." A.R.S. § 13-4310(D) (emphasis added). To meet this burden, a claimant must provide sworn facts that support ownership or an interest in the property in the claim and answer. A.R.S. § 13-4311(D)-(G). ¶53 Despite multiple opportunities, Appellants had provided no specific supporting facts required by A.R.S. § 13-4311(E)(4), (6), (7), including the date when they acquired an interest in the Vehicles, the transferors, and the circumstances under which they acquired their interests. Only one Appellant submitted a contemporaneous verification. By the time of the March 12 hearing, more than two and one-half years had passed since the Racketeering Defendants had appended Appellants' affidavits to their claim. In light of this record, and the failure of Appellants' to meet the burden under A.R.S. § 13-4310(D), the superior court was entitled to strike the answers as sham, decline to proceed with a hearing, and the court did not deprive Appellants of due process in doing so.
Appellants also complain about the denial of leave to amend. A court has the discretion to allow an owner or interest holder to amend a claim to correct technical inadequacies. In re $70,269.91 in U.S. Currency, 172 Ariz. 15, 20-21, 833 P.2d 32, 37-38 (App. 1991). Relevant factors for the court's consideration are whether: (1) "the claimant advised the court and government" of his or her interest prior to the claim deadline; (2) the government would suffer prejudice; and (3) "the claimant has made a good faith effort to comply with the statutory filing requirements." Id. at 21, 833 P.2d at 38. Here, repeated failures to comply with the statutory requirements support the superior court's denial of Appellants' leave to amend.
--------
CONCLUSION
¶54 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the superior court's rulings in all respects.
____________
DONN KESSLER, Judge
CONCURRING: ________________________
JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge
____________
JON W. THOMPSON, Judge