MANKATO — Crystal Van Note said she made a mistake anyone could make when she loaned her car to a former boyfriend who decided to drive after drinking.

The boyfriend is long gone, but a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling has Van Note concerned that her car will be taken, too. It was already confiscated once for more than six months by the city of Mankato. The $12,000 Pontiac G6 was eventually released to her by a judge’s order, which came a couple of days before Christmas 2009.

Vehicles used by people who have been caught driving while intoxicated more than once can be forfeited, even if that vehicle belongs to someone else, according to state law. The actual owners of those vehicles can stop the forfeitures by requesting a court hearing within 30 days of receiving a forfeiture notice.

Van Note’s car was taken when her ex-boyfriend, 30-year-old Jason Paul Messner, was arrested for driving it while intoxicated on May 16, 2009. She said Messner told her he was taking his son to a doctor’s appointment in Rochester. She found out he’d been arrested when she called his cell phone and a Mankato police officer answered.

“I wasn’t aware that he was going out drinking,” she said during an interview Tuesday.

On June 11, 2009, that officer stopped at Van Note’s house to serve her with a forfeiture notice. Van Note wasn’t home, so the officer gave the notice to her roommate, according to court records.

Van Note didn’t file her request for a hearing until Sept. 14, 2009, or just over three months later. The filing cost her $400, and that was without hiring an attorney.

“Being a single mom, I didn’t have the money to file the paperwork,” she said. “So I just set money aside here and there and paid the fee as soon as I could afford it.”

Linda Boucher Hilligoss, the assistant Mankato city attorney who handled the case, argued that the forfeiture should stand because Van Note’s request for a hearing came too late. The judge disagreed, saying the notice wasn’t properly delivered to Van Note. On Dec. 23, 2009, District Court Judge Bradley Walker issued an order saying Van Note was an “innocent owner” and the car should be returned.

“I told him, ‘If you take my car away, I’ll have to start over again,’” Van Note said.

Hilligoss appealed the decision and the court of appeals ruled in her favor.

The ruling said Van Note testified she received the notice from her friend sometime in the middle of June. The case has been sent back “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

“I’m dreading them coming to take my car again because I will have no way to get my kids back and forth from school,” Van Note said. “I’ll have no way to get to work.”

Hilligoss said Tuesday it’s not likely that the car will be confiscated again. She said her appeal was more about making sure the law was followed than gaining an asset for the city.

“We’re setting the record straight,” Hilligoss said. “Our main goal is to encourage people to not lend their car out to someone if there’s any chance that person is going to drive drunk.

“It’s just not worth it. They get the DWI, but you could lose your car.”

Under state law, someone who is in a relationship with someone else is presumed to know if that person has two or more previous drunken-driving arrests, Hilligoss added. Messner had one previous arrest.

“It’s not our goal to punish people and take cars away from truly innocent owners,” Hilligoss said. “We’re pretty confident she won’t let him drive the car again.”