Forfeiture-Procedure -- Generally

Favorable and Noteworthy Decisions in the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Courts

United States v. $196,969.00 U.S. Currency, 719 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013)

Cash was seized in the defendant’s house. In his claim, he asserted that it was his house and everything in it belonged to him. This was a sufficient assertion of an ownership interest to establish his standing to contest the forfeiture.

United States v. Funds in the Amount of $574,840, 719 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2013)

The claimant filed his claim and accompanied the claim with a motion to stay the proceedings because the pendency of criminal proceedings in the state court. The statute, 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2), states that a stay shall be granted. The trial court denied the motion to stay and required the claimants to answer interrogatories, after which he dismissed the claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The claimant filed a sufficient claim, after which a stay should have been granted.

United States v. $11,500.00, 710 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013)

The district court struck the claimant’s claim to the property in this case based on his failure to properly state that his interest was that of a bailee. This was improper. The fact that the money was given to the defendant by his wife (and he was taking it to the jail in order to bail her out after she was arrested on a drug offense), did not negate his claim that he had a possessory interest in the money. Also, the requirement that the claimant state whether his interest is that of a bailee may occur after the filing of the initial claim.

United States v. $92,203, 537 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2008)

The government may not rely on hearsay (unless a recognized hearsay exception exists) in presenting its case in support of forfeiture. When Congress enacted CAFRA in 2000, the decision to elevate the government’s burden to a preponderance of the evidence implicitly recognized that the rules against hearsay would also be enforced. This applies to summary judgment proceedings, as well. Note, however, that the statute expressly provides that the Rules of Evidence do not apply to hearings on motions for Temporary Restraining Orders.

United States v. $125,938.62, 370 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004)

The district court abused its discretion in denying the claimants’ request to amend their verified claims. The district court should be wary to not confer the sins of the attorney unto the claimant in a civil forfeiture case, especially when the prejudice to the government, if any, is slight. Amendments should be liberally permitted to add verifications to claims originally lacking them, provided that the amendment would not undermine the goals underlying the time restriction and verification requirement of Rule C. In this case, the government knew the claimants at the time the initial verified complaint was filed and thus the government was not prejudiced.

United States v. One Piece of Property at 5800 SW 74th Ave, Miami, Fla., 363 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2004)

The government moved for summary judgment in this forfeiture case and the claimant failed to respond. Nevertheless, summary judgment should not have been granted in the absence of a showing in the government’s motion that there were no contested issues. The government’s presentation in this case (which included the deposition of the claimant’s girlfriend) demonstrated that there was a dispute as to the legality of the search of the claimant’s house and therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted.

United States v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, 330 F.3d 141 (3rd Cir. 2003)

The statute of limitation for the institution of an action to seize substitute assets under 18 U.S.C. § 984 is one year.

United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004)

During the direct appeal of his conviction, the defendant died. The en banc Fifth Circuit concludes that the criminal forfeiture order, as well as the sentence of restitution abated upon the defendant’s death.

United States v. Certain Real Property Located at Route 1, 126 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997)

When a claimant fails to comply with the government's discovery requests, the trial court should do what it does in other civil cases: enter an order to compel, or take other appropriate action. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d). Striking the claim and entering judgment for the government should not be the first step.

Ikelionwu v. United States, 150 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 1998)

The trial court improperly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint that sought return of seized property. The trial court dismissed the complaint based on laches. The Second Circuit, however, held that the government failed to show that the plaintiff knew of his right to challenge the forfeiture proceedings. At no time did the government serve notice of the proceedings on the plaintiff. While the plaintiff knew about the seizures, he did not know about the forfeiture proceedings.