Order filed June 26, 2026. 2026 IL App (5th) 250295
Motion to publish granted
July 29, 2026. NO. 5-25-0295
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE ex rel. THOMAS A. HAINE, ) Appeal from the
State’s Attorney of Madison County, Illinois, ) Circuit Court of
) Madison County.
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) No. 24-MX-732
)
2017 LEXUS RX 350, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY )
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000) UNITED )
STATES CURRENCY, and FOUR HUNDRED )
DOLLARS ($400) UNITED STATES CURRENCY, )
)
Defendants ) Honorable
) Neil T. Schroeder,
(Xiaolin Zheng and Kezhong Xie, Claimants-Appellants). ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE CLARKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices McHaney and Sholar concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶1 The claimants, Xiaolin Zheng and Kezhong Xie, appeal the order of the circuit court of
Madison County granting the State’s motion to dismiss the forfeiture action without directing the
disposition of the property. On appeal, the claimants argue that the circuit court erred by dismissing
the forfeiture action without ordering the disposition of the property and failing to return the seized
property to them. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
1
¶2 I. BACKGROUND
¶3 We limit our recitation to the facts necessary for the disposition of this appeal. On June 25,
2024, the Illinois State Police (ISP) conducted a traffic stop on Interstate 70 in Madison County
involving claimants Xiaolin Zheng and Kezhong Xie. During the stop, officers located
approximately $250,000 in U.S. currency concealed beneath the carpeted center console area of a
2017 Lexus RX 350, along with an additional $400 on Zheng’s person. The Lexus and all seized
currency were taken into evidence and held by the Metropolitan Enforcement Group of Southern
Illinois (MEGSI).
¶4 On June 27, 2024, the Madison County State’s Attorney filed felony money laundering
charges against Zheng and Xie. In addition, on July 3, 2024, the State filed a verified complaint
for forfeiture under Madison County case No. 24-MX-732 pursuant to section 29B-5 of the
Criminal Code of 2012 (Code) (720 ILCS 5/29B-5 (West 2022)), seeking forfeiture of the Lexus,
the $250,000 in U.S. currency, and the $400 in U.S. currency. The verified forfeiture complaint
alleged that the seized property constituted proceeds of money laundering or was used to facilitate
money laundering offenses. The circuit court, on the same date, entered a probable-cause finding
under section 29B-9(e) (id. § 29B-9(e)).
¶5 On July 30, 2024, the claimants filed a claim/answer asserting lawful ownership of the
property. Their filing asserted a possessory and ownership interest in the seized money and vehicle
and alleged that the money was obtained from family and acquaintances for the purpose of opening
a restaurant in the Midwest. Additionally, on that same date, the claimants filed a motion to excuse
verification of the claim/answer. On August 7, 2024, the claimants filed a verification to their
claim/answer, and the matter was set for further proceedings.
2
¶6 During the preliminary stages of the forfeiture action, multiple pleadings were filed,
including claimants’ motions for substitution of judge. On October 2, 2024, the State filed a motion
to strike the claimants’ claim/answer asserting that they have failed to “provide sufficient facts or
legal basis to substantiate their claim of ownership” in addition to challenging whether the claim
satisfies the statutory pleading requirements. The circuit court set the motion to strike for a
November 1, 2024, hearing and scheduling conference. On October 15, 2024, the claimants filed
a written response. Before any ruling on the motion to strike, the claimants filed a motion to
dismiss the forfeiture action and to return the property on October 25, 2024, and later amended the
motion on October 30. On October 31, 2024, the State filed a motion to stay the forfeiture
proceedings under section 29B-13(12) of the Code (id. § 29B-13(12)), asserting that the underlying
criminal case should proceed first. The record indicates that both parties agreed to stay the
forfeiture proceedings while related criminal matters proceeded.
¶7 Thereafter, on March 10, 2025—nine months after the seizure—Callaway County,
Missouri, issued criminal arrest warrants charging both Zheng and Xie with felony “stealing by
deceit” relating to the same $250,000. Missouri authorities advised ISP and Madison County
prosecutors that they sought the seized currency for evidentiary use in the Missouri criminal case.
We note that no separate claim or turnover order was filed in the forfeiture action by Missouri
authorities, nor a motion requesting an “innocent owner hearing” under section 29B-14 by the
alleged true owners of the currency in Missouri. See id. § 29B-14.
¶8 On March 20, 2025, the State dismissed the criminal felony money laundering charges.
The following day, March 21, 2025, the State filed a motion to dismiss the forfeiture case, and the
matter proceeded to a hearing. The circuit court noted that on March 6, 2025, claimants’ counsel
had filed a motion for return of the property. The parties agreed that the State’s motion to dismiss
3
should be addressed first. The claimants’ counsel objected to the proposed dismissal order because
it did not direct the disposition of the property, arguing that the forfeiture statute required the court
to direct the disposition of the seized property and citing federal forfeiture authority. Counsel
emphasized that while the State had authority to dismiss its own action, the court retained an
independent obligation to direct the disposition of the property.
¶9 The central issue at the hearing concerned whether, after dismissal, the circuit court was
statutorily required to determine ownership or otherwise direct disposition of the seized property.
The claimants argued that “there must be directions from you as to the res” and that a forfeiture
court retains jurisdiction until it orders where the property must go.
¶ 10 The State argued that the money constituted evidence in Missouri and that, because it was
no longer pursuing forfeiture, the circuit court had no further role. The State explained it was not
pursuing forfeiture and intended that the currency “should go to Missouri where [the claimants]
have warrants pending” and where it would be used “as evidence in that matter.” The State also
argued that the statutory return provisions apply only following adjudication on the merits, not
voluntary dismissal.
¶ 11 The circuit court repeatedly expressed the view that, upon signing the dismissal order, “this
Court’s jurisdiction ends with what happens to the car and the money.” The circuit court stated:
“I don’t think I have jurisdiction over the res once this case is dismissed. And it simply
becomes something sitting in a vault at the Illinois State Police. And what happens to it at
that point, not my concern. If it ends up in civil court because people want to file lawsuits,
so be it.”
¶ 12 The claimants’ counsel strongly disputed the court’s view that dismissal ended its authority
over the property. Counsel emphasized that they had filed a verified claim asserting an interest in
4
the seized property and that no other person or entity had appeared to assert a competing claim.
Counsel argued that the forfeiture statute required the court to resolve the claims before it and that
“one of the parties has said we don’t want it anymore,” leaving the claimants “the only ones left.”
Counsel maintained that, under the Code, once a verified claim is filed, “there’s a process that you
have to go through,” and that the court was therefore required to determine the proper disposition
of the property.
¶ 13 The record reflects that the circuit court rejected claimants’ position. The judge
characterized the result urged by claimants—automatic return of the property upon the State’s
voluntary dismissal—as an “absurd result.” The court reasoned that the forfeiture statute did not
require the State to proceed to a merits hearing simply because a claim had been filed. The court
further expressed that dismissal ended the forfeiture court’s role, stating that “once this forfeiture
action is dismissed, this Court’s jurisdiction ends.”
¶ 14 The circuit court also rejected claimants’ argument that section 29B‑13(10) required return
of the property because the State “failed to meet its burden.” The court explained that the statutory
burden‑shifting scheme applies only after a hearing or trial at which the State presents its
case‑in‑chief. Because “there’s been no hearing, and there’s been no trial,” the court concluded
that the provisions in section 29B‑13(9) and (10) concerning the State’s burden did not apply. The
court emphasized that it was making no determination regarding ownership or whether the State
had met—or failed to meet—any substantive burden, because the forfeiture action was being
dismissed at the pleadings stage.
¶ 15 Ultimately, the circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss without directing any
disposition of the property. The written dismissal order did not address the Lexus, the $250,000,
or the $400, and simply closed the case. As a result, the seized property remained in ISP/MEGSI
5
custody with no judicial directive governing its lawful disposition. The claimants filed a timely
notice of appeal.
¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 17 On appeal, two issues are presented: (1) whether the circuit court erred by dismissing the
forfeiture action without entering a final order directing the disposition of the seized property and
(2) whether the circuit court erred in refusing to return the property to the claimants upon dismissal
of the forfeiture action. Notably, the State expressly concedes that the circuit court retained in rem
jurisdiction over the property and should have directed its disposition. Because both issues involve
questions of statutory interpretation and in rem jurisdiction, our review is de novo. See Marque
Medicos Fullerton, LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 160756, ¶ 31
(questions relating to circuit court’s jurisdiction and interpretation of a statute present questions of
law subject to de novo review).
¶ 18 As an initial matter, the State, during oral argument, suggested for the first time that the
voluntary dismissal order may not have been final and appealable. Although the issue was not
raised in the briefs, this court has an independent duty to consider issues of jurisdiction, regardless
of whether either party has raised them. People v. Smith, 228 Ill. 2d 95, 104 (2008). In Kahle v.
John Deere Co., 104 Ill. 2d 302 (1984), the Illinois Supreme Court held that a defendant may
appeal from a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal order because, although dismissed without prejudice,
such an order conclusively terminates the pending action and may prejudice the opposing party,
leaving no mechanism for later review in the trial court. Id. at 305-07. The same reasoning applies
here: the order dismissing the State’s forfeiture complaint ended the action in its entirety, resolved
all claims then before the court, and rendered all pending motions—including the State’s motion
to strike and the claimants’ motion to dismiss and return property—moot, leaving nothing
6
remaining that would alter finality. Whether the dismissal should have been accompanied by a
judicial disposition of the property presents a pure legal question that can be reviewed only on
direct appeal. Accordingly, the March 21, 2025, dismissal order is final and appealable under
Kahle, and we have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
¶ 19 Article 29B of the Code authorizes forfeiture of property connected to money laundering
offenses. 720 ILCS 5/art. 29B (West 2022). Property is subject to forfeiture if it constitutes or is
derived from proceeds of money laundering or if it is used or intended to be used to commit or
facilitate such conduct. Id. § 29B-5(1)-(2).
¶ 20 Under section 29B-13, a judicial in rem forfeiture proceeding is initiated by filing a verified
complaint, which must be served on all known or reasonably identifiable persons claiming an
interest in the property. Id. § 29B-13(1), (3). Once the court enters a probable-cause finding under
section 29B-9(e), the statute directs that the circuit court “shall order the property subject to the
applicable forfeiture Act held until the conclusion of any forfeiture proceeding.” Id. § 29B-9(e).
¶ 21 A. Failure to Enter a Final Disposition Order
¶ 22 The claimants first argue that the circuit court erred by dismissing the forfeiture action
without issuing an order directing the disposition of the seized Lexus and currency. They assert
that once the State invoked the court’s in rem jurisdiction by filing a verified complaint and the
court entered a probable-cause order under section 29B-9(e), the court acquired jurisdiction over
the property and could not lose that jurisdiction until it entered an order specifying the property’s
lawful disposition. The claimants rely on People v. Keys, 324 Ill. App. 3d 630, 635 (2001), and a
line of federal in rem decisions holding that a court’s in rem jurisdiction persists until the court
affirmatively disposes of the property.
7
¶ 23 The State, on appeal, expressly concedes that the circuit court retained in rem jurisdiction
over the property even after the State voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The State acknowledges,
in its brief, that “the circuit court never lost in rem jurisdiction over the property and that the court’s
jurisdiction remains, regardless of the property’s present location.” The State further concedes that
dismissal alone did not extinguish the court’s jurisdiction and that the court was required to issue
a disposition order. The State only disputes whether the circuit court was required to return the
property to the claimants.
¶ 24 When the State filed its verified forfeiture complaint and the circuit court entered a
probable-cause order under section 29B-9(e) of the Code, the circuit court acquired in rem
jurisdiction over the seized Lexus and currency. People ex rel. Alvarez v. $59,914 United States
Currency, 2022 IL 126927, ¶ 20 (circuit court had in rem jurisdiction over currency based upon
the State’s seizure and filing of a forfeiture action). Section 29B-9(e) provides that, upon a finding
of probable cause, the circuit court shall order the property held until the conclusion of the
forfeiture proceeding. 720 ILCS 5/29B-9(e) (West 2022). Although article 29B does not define
“conclusion,” the structure of article 29B reflects that proceedings conclude only when the circuit
court enters a judicial determination directing the disposition of the property. See id.
§§ 29B-13(10), 29B-25(a). Nothing in article 29B authorizes voluntary dismissal alone to resolve
the status of property already placed within the circuit court’s in rem jurisdiction.
¶ 25 Illinois authority likewise recognizes that once a court acquires in rem jurisdiction over
property, that jurisdiction continues until the court affirmatively relinquishes control over or
disposes of the property. In Keys, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 635, the appellate court explained that courts
are “rightfully jealous of their jurisdiction,” and once jurisdiction attaches, it is not surrendered
“until [the court] ha[s] expressly done so.” Keys further held that unilateral acts by law enforcement
8
or the state’s attorney cannot divest the court of jurisdiction over seized property. Id. at 635-36
(“The State’s Attorney does not have the power to oust the circuit court of jurisdiction once that
jurisdiction has been assumed.”). Although Keys addressed competing claims to seized assets, its
reasoning remains applicable: when property is seized pursuant to judicial process, the court’s
control persists until it enters an order directing lawful disposition. Id. at 636-37.
¶ 26 The Illinois Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in Alvarez, 2022 IL 126927. There,
the court held that in rem jurisdiction attaches when the State seizes property and initiates
forfeiture proceedings, and that once jurisdiction attaches, subsequent defects in notice or
procedure do not divest the court of authority over the res. Id. ¶¶ 18-23. The court further explained
that such defects render any resulting order voidable, rather than void, precisely because
jurisdiction over the property already attached. Id. ¶¶ 20-23. Thus, Alvarez confirms that once a
court acquires in rem jurisdiction over the res, that jurisdiction is not defeated by subsequent
procedural irregularities. Likewise, Keys recognized that property comes within the circuit court’s
power upon seizure pursuant to judicial process and that, once jurisdiction has been assumed, it is
not surrendered until the court expressly relinquishes it. Keys, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 636-37.
Accordingly, the question is not whether the State’s voluntary dismissal terminated the forfeiture
claim; it plainly did. Rather, the question is whether dismissal of the forfeiture pleadings, standing
alone, also terminated the circuit court’s in rem authority over property that remained in its
custody—still physically secured in an ISP vault—because no order directing its disposition had
been entered. Under Alvarez and Keys, it did not. Absent a judicial disposition, transfer order, or
other affirmative relinquishment of control over the property, dismissal of the complaint did not,
itself, extinguish the circuit court’s in rem jurisdiction.
9
¶ 27 Federal authority is consistent with this framework. The United States Supreme Court has
long held that “the court first assuming jurisdiction over the property may maintain and exercise
that jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other.” Penn General Casualty Co. v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania ex rel. Schnader, 294 U.S. 189, 195 (1935). Likewise, Republic National Bank of
Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80 (1992), reaffirmed that once a court acquires in rem
jurisdiction, that jurisdiction is not defeated by subsequent transfer of the res or by loss of physical
possession. Id. at 87-88. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has similarly recognized that when state
law vests custody of seized property in the circuit court, neither law enforcement nor a prosecuting
authority may unilaterally interfere with or circumvent that court’s in rem jurisdiction; disposition
must occur through the court exercising that jurisdiction. United States v. One 1979 Chevrolet C–
20 Van, 924 F.2d 120, 122-23 (7th Cir. 1991). Together, these authorities support the same
principle discussed above: once in rem jurisdiction attaches, it remains unless and until the court
affirmatively relinquishes it.
¶ 28 As noted above, the State concedes on appeal that the circuit court retained in rem
jurisdiction after dismissal, and that a disposition order was required. Although not binding on this
court, the concession is consistent with article 29B and controlling principles of in rem jurisdiction;
thus, we accept the State’s concession. Our acceptance of the State’s position does not rest upon
the concession alone; rather, the continuing nature of in rem jurisdiction under Illinois law
provides an independent basis for this conclusion.
¶ 29 Applying these principles, the circuit court erred by concluding that dismissal of the
forfeiture complaint terminated its authority over the property. Upon the filing of a forfeiture action
and entry of the section 29B-9(e) probable-cause order, the court obtained continuing control over
the Lexus and currency until it issued an order disposing of the res. The dismissal order entered
10
here contained no such directive. Instead, the court expressly stated that the property was “not [its]
concern” after dismissal and would remain “in a vault” with the Illinois State Police. That
reasoning contravenes article 29B, Keys, and Alvarez, and the dismissal order must be reversed.
¶ 30 We note an additional basis supporting our conclusion that the circuit court retained in rem
jurisdiction and requiring reversal of the circuit court’s dismissal order. Although not raised by
either party, the circuit court erred when it failed to address the State’s motion to strike the
claimants’ verified claim prior to granting dismissal of the forfeiture action. Our conclusion is
reinforced by the statutory structure of article 29B, as recently examined in People ex rel. Raoul
v. $699,982 in United States Currency, 2026 IL App (3d) 230139. In Raoul, the appellate court
reversed the circuit court’s dismissal of a forfeiture action, holding that even though the parties
had agreed to address a motion to dismiss before the State’s challenge to the verified claim under
section 29B-13(5) and (6), the court erred by granting dismissal without first resolving that
challenge. Id. ¶¶ 32-37, 42. As Raoul explains, section 29B-13(5) provides that “ ‘[o]nly an owner
of or interest holder in the property’ ” may answer the State’s complaint and participate as a
claimant in an in rem forfeiture proceeding. Id. ¶ 33 (quoting 720 ILCS 5/29B-13(5) (West 2022)).
Further it provides that, upon the State’s motion, “ ‘the court shall first hold a hearing, in which a
claimant shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she has a lawful, legitimate
ownership interest in the property and that it was obtained through a lawful source.’ ” Id. (quoting
720 ILCS 5/29B-13(5) (West 2022)). Thus, once the State triggers section 29B-13(5), the circuit
court must decide that threshold ownership and claim-sufficiency issue before entering dispositive
relief and cannot circumvent the statutory sequence. Id. ¶¶ 32-33, 37, 42. Moreover, Raoul makes
clear that although parties may agree to sequence motions in a particular order, such agreements
do not relieve the court of its independent obligation to decide the section 29B-13(5) issue first.
11
Id. ¶¶ 34-37. Although Raoul did not arise from a voluntary dismissal, its reasoning applies with
equal force because the filing of a verified claim coupled with the State’s motion challenging the
verified claim under section 29B-13(5) imposes a statutory obligation that is not extinguished
merely because the State later elects to abandon the forfeiture complaint. Once the State invokes
section 29B-13(5), the circuit court must determine whether any lawful claimants exist—both to
assess who may participate in the proceedings and argue motions before the court and to identify
the proper disposition of the property should dismissal be granted.
¶ 31 The same structural defect occurred here. At the March 21, 2025, hearing, the circuit court
acknowledged there were outstanding motions, but the parties agreed to proceed on the motion to
dismiss first. During arguments related to the motion to dismiss, the circuit court noted that the
State had filed a motion to strike the claimants’ verified claim, and the circuit court expressly
stated on the record that it had set that motion “for a hearing” but that “we never got past
[subsection] 5” because the parties agreed to stay the forfeiture case pending the related criminal
charges. The circuit court further acknowledged that it had “never determined that [the claimants]
made a valid claim” and that section 29B-13(9) and (10) did not apply because “there’s been no
hearing, and there’s been no trial.” As in Raoul, these statements by the circuit court confirm that
the statutory prerequisites governing who may appear as a claimant remained unresolved at the
time the court granted dismissal. See id. ¶¶ 32-33.
¶ 32 Nothing in Raoul suggests that this statutory obligation depends on which party seeks
dismissal; the error lies in granting dispositive relief while the unresolved section 29B-13(5)
challenge remained pending. Under Raoul, the circuit court here was required to first address the
State’s motion to strike the verified claim before proceeding to any dispositive relief. Id. ¶¶ 32-33,
37, 42. Because the circuit court “never got past [subsection] 5,” the statutory sequence required
12
for concluding a forfeiture proceeding had not been completed. Accordingly, the forfeiture action
had not reached a “conclusion” within the meaning of section 29B-9(e) at the time of dismissal.
Thus, the circuit court retained in rem jurisdiction over the res and erred in dismissing the
forfeiture action without entering a lawful disposition order.
¶ 33 Because the circuit court dismissed the forfeiture action without resolving the status of the
seized property as required under article 29B, reversal is necessary. On remand, the circuit court
must exercise its continuing in rem jurisdiction, adjudicate any outstanding threshold matters
under section 29B-13, and enter a lawful disposition order consistent with article 29B’s statutory
framework.
¶ 34 B. Whether Claimants Were Entitled to Return
¶ 35 The claimants next argue that the circuit court was required to return the seized property
immediately upon voluntary dismissal of the forfeiture complaint. They rely primarily on section
29B-13(10) of the Code, which provides that if the State “does not meet its burden to show that
the property is subject to forfeiture, the court shall order the interest in the property returned or
conveyed to the claimant ***.” 720 ILCS 5/29B-13(10) (West 2022). They argue that dismissal
should be treated as a failure of proof and that, because no competing claim was filed, return was
mandatory.
¶ 36 We do not read article 29B so broadly. Section 29B-13 establishes a structured, sequential
adjudicative framework. First, a claimant must file a verified claim satisfying statutory
requirements. Id. § 29B-13(5), (6). The court must then resolve any challenges to the sufficiency
of that claim. Only after a legally sufficient and adjudicated claim is recognized does the statute
contemplate an evidentiary hearing at which the State must “meet its burden” by proving that the
property is subject to forfeiture. Id. § 29B-13(9), (10). Section 29B-13(10) applies only when the
13
State fails to meet its burden at such a hearing. Nothing in article 29B treats voluntary dismissal
before adjudication as equivalent to an adverse finding on the merits.
¶ 37 Here, the State filed a motion to strike the verified claim challenging its factual and legal
sufficiency under section 29B‑13, and the circuit court never ruled on that motion. As a result, the
court never determined whether the claimants’ filing met the statutory requirements necessary to
trigger the burden‑shifting and mandatory‑return provisions of section 29B‑13(10). As discussed
above, section 29B‑13(5) through (10) operates in a required sequence, and the court cannot reach
the merits‑related provisions of section 29B‑13(9) and (10) until any threshold challenge to the
verified claim has been resolved. See Raoul, 2026 IL App (3d) 230139, ¶¶ 32-33, 37. Because the
State invoked section 29B‑13(5) here and the court “never got past [subsection] 5,” the proceeding
never advanced to the stage at which the State could be said to have failed to meet its burden; thus,
section 29B‑13(10) was never triggered.
¶ 38 Further, article 29B expressly recognizes that property may continue to be lawfully held
for evidentiary purposes independent of an active forfeiture proceeding. Section 29B-25(d)
authorizes retention of property “needed for evidentiary purposes,” and section 29B-19 tolls
statutory deadlines while property is held as evidence. 720 ILCS 5/29B-25(d), 29B-19 (West 2022)
(“If property is seized for evidence and for forfeiture, the time periods for instituting judicial and
non-judicial forfeiture proceedings shall not begin until the property is no longer necessary for
evidence.”). Nothing in article 29B limits evidentiary retention to Illinois prosecutions. The record
indicates that Missouri authorities sought the currency for use in criminal proceedings arising from
the same events. Because the circuit court erroneously believed it lost jurisdiction upon dismissal,
it never considered whether evidentiary retention or transfer was authorized. We express no view
as to whether Missouri’s criminal proceedings may independently justify continued evidentiary
14
retention or transfer under principles of comity or custodial coordination; such questions remain
for the circuit court to address on remand in the first instance.
¶ 39 Illinois precedent confirms that section 29B-13(10) cannot be read to mandate automatic
return upon voluntary dismissal. In Keys, the appellate court rejected interpretations that would
allow disposition of seized property outside the judicial process mandated by statute, underscoring
that custody remains with the court until it orders otherwise. Keys, 324 Ill. App. 3d at 635-37. The
Illinois Supreme Court has likewise instructed that statutes must be construed as a whole and not
in a manner that collapses distinct procedural safeguards. People v. Gutman, 2011 IL 110338, ¶ 12.
Reading section 29B-13(10) to mandate immediate return upon voluntary dismissal would nullify
the statute’s sequential structure and improperly treat dismissal as a merits adjudication.
¶ 40 Federal forfeiture authority is consistent with this interpretation. The Sixth Circuit has
explained that even when a forfeiture action is voluntarily dismissed, the district court “retains the
authority to make an appropriate disposition of the property,” because a federal court may continue
to resolve collateral issues after dismissal. United States v. $515,060.42 in United States Currency,
152 F.3d 491, 501 n.9 (6th Cir. 1998). Thus, dismissal does not itself terminate judicial control
over the res or require the immediate return of the res to the claimant.
¶ 41 Accordingly, because the sufficiency of the verified claim was never adjudicated, no
evidentiary hearing occurred, and no judicial determination regarding forfeiture was made, section
29B-13(10) was not triggered. Additionally, the mere act of voluntary dismissal does not constitute
the “conclusion” of a forfeiture proceedings within the meaning of section 29B-9(e), as the
statutory framework conditions that conclusion upon a judicial determination resolving the
disposition of the res. Thus, although the circuit court erred in dismissing the forfeiture action
without entering a disposition order, the claimants were not automatically entitled to immediate
15
return of the property as a matter of law. The proper remedy is reversal of the dismissal order and
remand for the circuit court to exercise its continuing in rem jurisdiction and conduct the necessary
proceedings to determine the lawful disposition of the seized property under article 29B, as set
forth below.
¶ 42 For these reasons, we reverse the dismissal order to the extent it failed to dispose of the
seized property and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the circuit court shall exercise its
continuing in rem jurisdiction and, if necessary, resolve the threshold matters left pending at
dismissal—including the sufficiency of any verified claim under section 29B‑13—and conduct the
proceedings required under article 29B to determine the lawful disposition of the Lexus and
currency. We also acknowledge that circumstances involving the res may have evolved since
dismissal, including the fact—known to the circuit court at the time—that Missouri authorities
sought the seized currency for use in a pending criminal prosecution. We express no view on the
legal effect on any such developments. On remand, the circuit court may consider these and any
other post-dismissal developments in the first instance, as appropriate under Illinois law and
principles of comity, in determining the proper disposition of the res.
¶ 43 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 44 For the reasons stated, we reverse and remand the judgment of the Madison County circuit
court.
¶ 45 Reversed and remanded with directions.
16
The People ex rel. Haine, etc. v. 2017 Lexus RX 350, et al., 2026 IL App (5th) 250295
Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Madison County, No. 24-MX732; the Hon. Neil T. Schroeder, Judge, presiding.
Attorneys Joshua R. Evans, Fred P. Schuman, and Edward W. Unsell, of for The Unsell Law Firm, P.C., of East Alton, for appellants. Appellants:
Attorney Trent Marshall, Office of the State’s Attorney Appellate for Prosecutor, Fifth District of Mt. Vernon, for appellee. Appellee:
17