U.S. v. $9,041,598.68

• Decision Date: 13 February 1997
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. H-95-3182.
• Citation: 976 F.Supp. 633
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $9,041,598.68 (NINE MILLION FORTY ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT DOLLARS AND SIXTY EIGHT CENTS), Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

976 F.Supp. 633

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $9,041,598.68 (NINE MILLION FORTY ONE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED NINETY EIGHT DOLLARS AND SIXTY EIGHT CENTS), Defendant.

Civil Action No. H-95-3182.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

February 13, 1997.

Susan Beth Kempner, U.S. Attys. Office, Houston, TX, for U.S.

J.A. Tony Canales, Canales & Simonson, Corpus Christi, TX, for Mario Ruiz Massieu.

Joel R. White, Ogden, Gibson, White and Broocks, Houston, TX, for Houston Chronicle.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ATLAS, District Judge.

The United States has moved this Court for partial summary judgment on the issue of Claimant Mario Ruiz Massieu's ("Claimant") ownership of the Defendant currency. United States' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 107]. Claimant has responded in opposition. The Court has considered the motion and responses, the oral arguments of counsel, all other matters of record in this case, and the relevant authorities. For the reasons stated herein, the United States' motion is granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Claimant maintains that he has ownership of the Defendant currency because the money was a gift from his parents and brothers, joined with some funds of his own contribution. In his deposition taken months after the funds were seized and this action was commenced, Massieu explained the source of the Defendant currency by relating a conversation he had with his older brother, now deceased, José Francisco Ruiz Massieu:

When we spoke about the need to send the money to the United States, he told me that he was going to be able to send around $5 million. My brother Arturo could send perhaps a little more than a million dollars, and my parents around $2 million or a little more, and I around 500 or $600,000.

Deposition of Mario Ruiz Massieu (Exhibit A to Opposition to the Government's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 109]) ("Claimant Deposition"), at 49. The Government argues that the family did not make a gift to Claimant, but rather that Claimant is merely a bailee for his family's money.

Both the Government and Claimant rely upon Claimant's original deposition for their respective positions on Claimant's asserted ownership of the Defendant currency.¹ Claimant urges the Court to consider the deposition as a whole, but then focuses in particular on the following excerpts:

Q: Please tell the Court then why you claim that this money is yours.

A: Because I have an absolute right to that money. I can dispose of that money. The rights over that money, I have disposed of that money when I needed it, and the beneficiary of that account is my wife.

Claimant Deposition, at 44 (emphasis added).

Q: The question now arises, whose money is it that was deposited in ... [the] Texas Commerce Bank account, whose money is it? That is, is it your brother's? Is it your father's? Is it your other brother Arturo's, or your money, or whose money is it?

A: Basically fundamentally it's my money. It's money that is in my name. It's money that independently of who provided it was — it was money that was given to me as my property, which is the way in which a family functions in Mexico, and perhaps this may appear strange here.

In Mexico a family functions through a central axis, and this requires having a moral authority and patrimonial control, which can only be obtained by means of the absolute property of an asset. Seeing this in terms — rather sociopolitical terms, but also looking at it from the viewpoint of the property itself, there is no discussion whatsoever. And as far as I am concerned, that I am the owner of those resources, that I decide on those resources, as I decide whether I brush my teeth or not because it's my money, and they are my teeth.

Id. at 96-97 (emphasis added).

Q: The question that I have for you, sir, is whether or not you are only a person who's holding this account for the benefit of other people or are you the owner of the property?

A: I am the absolute owner of the property.

Q: Are you holding this property in trust for your brother or any other family members?

A: No. It's an amount of money that belongs to me. It's my property, and it's for my benefit, and I think it's very clear when one sees how the beneficiary is my wife.

Id. at 102 (emphasis added).

Q: So to keep money safe, you are suggesting to the Court that your brother now deceased, and your brother Arturo and perhaps even your father gave this money to you and disavowed themselves of any interest whatsoever?

A: Yes. It is my property. Things work like that in Mexico, and there is a person who is the owner of the money and entitled to it, and he's got all of the responsibilities, and he is the owner of all of the money. I don't see any problem.

Id. at 121-22 (emphasis added). Claimant also testified in his deposition that, looking at the records of Texas Commerce Bank, his family members are strangers to the account, and that there is nothing in writing to reflect his family's interest in the money. Id. at 50. Moreover, Claimant testified that he has used money from the account in question to buy a house in Houston under his own name, id. at 102-03, and that during his interview in March 1995 before the United States Pretrial Offices in the District of New Jersey he disclosed that he was the owner of the account. Id. at 105.

The Government focuses on other portions of Massieu's original deposition, in which, contrary to his conclusory assertions that he personally "owned" all the funds, he made statements clearly revealing that the money belonged to his family, rather than to him individually. Claimant stated that the money was to remain available to the family and be used as necessary for the family's needs and security:

Q: What reason did your brother give you for you receipt of these eight or nine bags of money?

A: We had spoken about the convenience of taking most of our family's money out by virtue of the fact that a gorilla [sic] war had started in Mexico, and a series of economic and political problems was foreseen in the country, and it was considered that it was the safest thing to have it in the United States because Mexico was no longer a safe country.

One cannot open accounts in dollars in Mexico, and the way to retain the value of the money was safer in dollars. Foreseeing as well, perhaps, the entire family would have to move to the United States due to the political problems in Mexico.

Q: Did you brother provide you with a reason then that the money should be taken by you from his home in January of 1994, sit in a closet until it was deposited in Texas Commerce Bank on March 3rd, 1994, rather than transported by Jose Francisco into the United States, an account opened and the money deposited?

A: Yes. He was a political figure in Mexico. He had decided that he would go to the highest level in Mexico. This money would provide security for the family, for our parents, for our brothers, for us and he did not wish because of his political career to have an account in the United States and deal with these situations that had to do with the family, so that he could devote his time totally to politics.

Claimant Deposition, at 4243 (emphasis added). Claimant further testified that, when the account in question was opened, he and José Francisco had

a conversation regarding the need to transfer a substantial amount of money to anticipate problems that were on the one hand economic and political, which would allow, if it became necessary, to move the entire family to live in the United States.

Id. at 94 (emphasis added). Moreover, when explaining that his brothers and parents were each contributing to the money to be sent to the United States, Claimant was asked whether "[t]hey believed that this was a safe way to ensure that their money would be available and safe," and he answered "Correct." Id. at 49-50 (emphasis added).

Claimant also testified that his older brother, José Francisco, previously "had the role of the moral authority within the family" and "was like the patriarch of an entire family," id. at 89-90, and that José Francisco had passed the patriarchal authority to him. When asked about money in question, Claimant answered in terms of his new role as patriarch:

Q: So at this point in time then, what decision was made by you and your family, including Jose Francisco, regarding your family's assets in Mexico?

A: The decision was that he would forego that moral authority or patriarchal position that he held within the family, and he would involve himself fully in the political problem that he was living, and this role that he had played within the family would then become mine, because of my profession as an attorney, as a lawyer, and the role which I played when he was absent with my parents, with my sister and my younger brother.

Id. at 95-96.

Both parties cite the Court only to the deposition as factual support for their positions on the issue of ownership. Claimant has not provided any affidavits, from himself or his family members, providing detail as to the circumstances of each gift. Rather, the Court is cited only to Claimant's general statements in his deposition as to the funds as a whole.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); Bozé v. Branstetter, 912 F.2d 801, 804 (5th Cir.1990). The facts are to be reviewed with all inferences drawn in favor of the party opposing the motion. Bozé, 912 F.2d at 804 (citing Reid v. State Farm Mut. Auto....