U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Estate at 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, Miami, Dade County, Fla., No. 88-5450

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore KRAVITCH and HATCHETT; KRAVITCH
Citation868 F.2d 1214
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE AT 7707 S.W. 74TH LANE, MIAMI, DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, together with all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, Defendant, William Moncada, Claimant-Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 88-5450
Decision Date28 March 1989

Page 1214

868 F.2d 1214
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE PARCEL OF REAL ESTATE AT 7707 S.W. 74TH LANE, MIAMI,
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, together with all
appurtenances thereto and improvements
thereon, Defendant,
William Moncada, Claimant-Appellant.
No. 88-5450.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
March 28, 1989.

Page 1215

Irwin G. Lichter, Miami, Fla., for claimant-appellant.

Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Peter Prieto, Linda Collins Hertz, Harriet Galvin, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before KRAVITCH and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and MARKEY *, Chief Circuit Judge.

KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal we conclude that the "fugitive from justice doctrine" that the Supreme Court first articulated in the context of criminal appeals, Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), also applies to civil in rem forfeiture actions. We affirm the district court's orders dismissing the claim of appellant William Moncado and entering final judgment of forfeiture.

I.

On December 5, 1986 the United States filed a complaint in the district court for forfeiture of one parcel of real estate located at 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The basis of the government's action was that the defendant real property had been used to facilitate the commission of a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1), 1 punishable by more than one year imprisonment, and therefore 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881(a)(7) 2 authorized the civil in rem forfeiture action. Essentially the government alleged that Douglas Robert Espinosa, acting on his own behalf or on behalf of appellant delivered narcotics proceeds in excess of $400,000 as payment for the transportation of cocaine into the United States at the defendant real property on two different occasions.

The United States Marshal seized the defendant property on February 23, 1987. On March 10, 1987 the government published notice that the defendant real property had been seized and was subject to forfeiture.

On March 5, 1987 appellant Moncado, the record owner of the property, through his lawyer filed a claim to the property and an answer to the forfeiture complaint. Appellant currently resides in Colombia.

The government informed the district court on April 24, 1987 that appellant had been indicted for narcotics trafficking in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1) and 846 and a warrant for his arrest had been issued. The district court then stayed all proceedings in the civil in rem forfeiture on May 6, 1987. The district court ruled that it would not permit appellant to litigate his claim in the civil in rem forfeiture action while at the same time he was avoiding

Page 1216

criminal prosecution in the United States. The district court gave appellant until August 7, 1987 to decide whether to pursue his claim in the forfeiture action. On August 20, 1987 appellant, again acting through his lawyer, notified that district court that he would not appear personally in the forfeiture action.

On October 21, 1987 the government moved to dismiss appellant's claim. The government argued that as a fugitive from justice appellant could not use the judicial process to contest the forfeiture action. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss.

After settling a claim against the defendant real property raised by a bank that held a mortgage on the property, the government and the bank jointly moved for an order adopting the stipulation of settlement and for entry of judgment of forfeiture. On April 18, 1988 the district court approved of the settlement stipulation, and entered a judgment of forfeiture against the defendant real property. The district court incorporated its previous ruling that appellant, as a fugitive from justice, could not contest the forfeiture.

II.

In Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), the Supreme Court ruled that an appellate court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Prevot, In re, Nos. 94-5854
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 7, 1995
    ...951 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.1991) (affirming the default judgment against a fugitive in a forfeiture case); U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Estate, 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989) (affirming the denial to a fugitive of access to trial of an in rem forfeiture action); U.S. v. $129,374 in U.S. Currency, 76......
  • Collazos v. U.S., No. 02-6324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 18, 2004
    ...(2d Cir.1984); see also United States v. Timbers Preserve, 999 F.2d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, 868 F.2d 1214, 1216 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. $129,374 in United States Currency, 769 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.1985). But see United States v. $40,877.59......
  • State of Md. Deposit Ins. Fund Corp. v. Billman, No. 143
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 1990
    ...the claimant's alleged criminal conduct. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate at 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, Miami, Dade County, Fla., 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. $45,940 in U.S. Currency, 739 F.2d 792 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 7......
  • Jaffe v. Snow, No. 91-1918
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 13, 1992
    ...criminal charges pending against him); United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate at 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, Miami, Dade County, Florida, 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989) (record owner of property seized by the government was not entitled to pursue a claim to the property where he was currently r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Prevot, In re, Nos. 94-5854
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 7, 1995
    ...951 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.1991) (affirming the default judgment against a fugitive in a forfeiture case); U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Estate, 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989) (affirming the denial to a fugitive of access to trial of an in rem forfeiture action); U.S. v. $129,374 in U.S. Currency, 76......
  • Collazos v. U.S., No. 02-6324.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 18, 2004
    ...(2d Cir.1984); see also United States v. Timbers Preserve, 999 F.2d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, 868 F.2d 1214, 1216 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. $129,374 in United States Currency, 769 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir.1985). But see United States v. $40,877.59......
  • State of Md. Deposit Ins. Fund Corp. v. Billman, No. 143
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 17, 1990
    ...the claimant's alleged criminal conduct. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate at 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, Miami, Dade County, Fla., 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. $45,940 in U.S. Currency, 739 F.2d 792 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 7......
  • Jaffe v. Snow, No. 91-1918
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 13, 1992
    ...criminal charges pending against him); United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate at 7707 S.W. 74th Lane, Miami, Dade County, Florida, 868 F.2d 1214 (11th Cir.1989) (record owner of property seized by the government was not entitled to pursue a claim to the property where he was currently r......
  • 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