U.S. v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, No. 94-8931

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore BIRCH and BARKETT; BARKETT
Citation66 F.3d 1164
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 2751 PEYTON WOODS TRAIL, S.W., Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia, Including all buildings and appurtenances thereon, described in Exhibit A, attached, Defendant, Approximately 4.37 Acres of Land, Lying in Land Lot 213 of the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia, Being lots 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 of the Hope Court Subdivision, Including all buildings and appurtenances thereon, described in Exhibit B, attached, Defendant, Danielle Richardson and William Richardson, Claimants-Appellants.
Decision Date17 October 1995
Docket NumberNo. 94-8931

Page 1164

66 F.3d 1164
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
2751 PEYTON WOODS TRAIL, S.W., Atlanta, Fulton County,
Georgia, Including all buildings and appurtenances
thereon, described in Exhibit A,
attached, Defendant,
Approximately 4.37 Acres of Land, Lying in Land Lot 213 of
the 14th District of Fulton County, Georgia, Being lots 2,
3, 5, 6 & 7 of the Hope Court Subdivision, Including all
buildings and appurtenances thereon, described in Exhibit B,
attached, Defendant,
Danielle Richardson and William Richardson, Claimants-Appellants.
No. 94-8931.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Oct. 17, 1995.

Page 1165

William Richardson, Camp Spring, MD, pro se.

Danielle Richardson, Atlanta, GA, pro se.

George M. Lawson, Lawson & Thornton, Atlanta, GA, for appellants.

Kent Alexander, U.S. Atty., Joseph Andre Plummer, Albert L. Kemp, Asst. U.S. Attys., Organized Crime Strike Force, Atlanta, GA, for appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SMITH *, Senior Circuit Judge.

BARKETT, Circuit Judge:

William Richardson appeals from a final judgment of civil forfeiture entered in favor of the government. He argues that the government's failure to afford him notice and a hearing before seizing his properties violated due process and that the district court should have dismissed the forfeiture complaint. Based on United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), we conclude that the government's ex parte seizure of the properties violated Richardson's right to due process and that the forfeiture complaint therefore must be dismissed. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of Richardson's motion to dismiss and the final judgment of forfeiture. 1

BACKGROUND

In 1993, the government received ex parte warrants authorizing seizure of the defendant properties after convincing a U.S. magistrate that probable cause existed to believe they were involved in or traceable to money laundering proscribed by 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1956 & 1957. Thereafter, the government filed a verified complaint for forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 981(a)(1)(A) and received warrants for arrest of the properties in rem. The government then executed process on the properties and changed the locks on an uninhabited home situated on the one developed property.

Richardson subsequently filed a claim asserting an ownership interest in the properties. He also moved to dismiss the seizure warrants and the forfeiture complaint, arguing that he was not given pre-seizure notice or a hearing. The district court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the government's motion for summary judgment.

Page 1166

DISCUSSION

In United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), the Supreme Court established that absent exigent circumstances, the seizure of real property for civil forfeiture violates fifth amendment due process if the property owner is not afforded notice and a hearing prior to the seizure. Id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 505. 2 The Court rejected the argument that due process is satisfied by a post-seizure hearing, concluding that:

based upon the importance of the private interests at risk and the absence of countervailing Government needs, ... the seizure of real property under Sec. 881(a)(7) is not one of those extraordinary instances that justify the postponement of notice and hearing. Unless exigent circumstances are present, the Due Process Clause requires the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, No. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • April 28, 1997
    ...v. All Assets and Equip. of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d 1181, 1193 (7th Cir. 1995). Cf. United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, S.W., 66 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 1995) (requiring dismissal of forfeiture action as remedy for due process violation through lack of preseizure notice and The fa......
  • U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, No. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • January 30, 1997
    ...dismissal of a civil in rem forfeiture complaint is the appropriate remedy for a Good violation. United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, 66 F.3d 1164, 1167 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. 2130 West Harbor Drive, 48 F.3d 289, 291-92 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. 9638 Chicago Heights, ......
  • U.S. v. Property Identified As Lot Numbered 718, Civil Action No. 96-2100-LFO.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 29, 1998
    ...that advocate dismissal, with leave to re-file if the statute of limitations permits. See United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, 66 F.3d 1164, 1166-67 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Located at 9638 Chicago Heights, 27 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir. 1994); see also......
  • U.S. v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, No. 02-1264.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 28, 2003
    ...so without specifically addressing whether Rule 12 is inconsistent with Rule C(6). See, e.g., United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, 66 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir.1995) (remanding for consideration of claimant's motion to dismiss); United States v. Funds in the Amount of $29,266.00, 96 F.Supp.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, No. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • April 28, 1997
    ...v. All Assets and Equip. of West Side Bldg. Corp., 58 F.3d 1181, 1193 (7th Cir. 1995). Cf. United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, S.W., 66 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 1995) (requiring dismissal of forfeiture action as remedy for due process violation through lack of preseizure notice and The fa......
  • U.S. v. Real Property Located at Incline Village, No. CV-N-90-0130-ECR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • January 30, 1997
    ...dismissal of a civil in rem forfeiture complaint is the appropriate remedy for a Good violation. United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, 66 F.3d 1164, 1167 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. 2130 West Harbor Drive, 48 F.3d 289, 291-92 (8th Cir.1995); United States v. 9638 Chicago Heights, ......
  • U.S. v. Property Identified As Lot Numbered 718, Civil Action No. 96-2100-LFO.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • July 29, 1998
    ...that advocate dismissal, with leave to re-file if the statute of limitations permits. See United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, 66 F.3d 1164, 1166-67 (11th Cir.1995); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Located at 9638 Chicago Heights, 27 F.3d 327, 330 (8th Cir. 1994); see also......
  • U.S. v. $8,221,877.16 in U.S. Currency, No. 02-1264.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • May 28, 2003
    ...so without specifically addressing whether Rule 12 is inconsistent with Rule C(6). See, e.g., United States v. 2751 Peyton Woods Trail, 66 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir.1995) (remanding for consideration of claimant's motion to dismiss); United States v. Funds in the Amount of $29,266.00, 96 F.Supp.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT