(affirming dismissal of forfeiture proceedings due to 23-day delay between tenth day after request for hearing and date on which hearing could have occurred); Metiver, 684 So.2d at 206 (affirming order holding five-day delay between tenth day after claimant requested hearing on forfeiture and date on which hearing occurred did not comply with Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act requirements that hearing occur within ten days or as soon as practicable thereafter, and requiring State to return currency seized during traffic stop). Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity, thus forfeiture statutes are strictly construed. See In re Forfeiture of 1993 Lexus ES 300, VIN: JT8VK13T9P0196573, 798 So.2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Town of Oakland v. Mercer, 851 So.2d 266, 269 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, at the expiration of the ten days
holding that penal statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the persons sought to be subjected to their operation holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign holding due process mandates that the provisions of the forfeiture act be strictly interpreted in favor of the persons being deprived of their property holding that only if provisions in an insurance contract are open to more than one interpretation should it be construed strictly against the insurer and liberally in favor of the insured holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions