U.S. v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii
| Decision Date | 04 April 2003 |
| Citation | 902 F.2d 1443 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE PARCEL OF LAND, KNOWN AS LOT 111-B, TAX MAP KEY |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Philip D. Bogetto, Honolulu, Hawaii, for claimant-appellant.
Florence T. Nakakuni, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before FARRIS, PREGERSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Richard Stage appeals the district court's denial of his claim for return of property forfeited pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881. The district court held that Stage was a "nominal owner" lacking standing to challenge the forfeiture. Alternatively, the court held that Stage did not qualify as an "innocent owner." We affirm.
The district court found that the government had satisfied its burden of showing probable cause that the property was used or intended for use in a manner to facilitate the commission of a federal narcotics offense. Stage does not dispute that the property was used for unlawful purposes, but argues that he is an "innocent owner" pursuant to section 881(a)(7).
The claimant in a forfeiture action has the burden of showing that he owns or has an interest in the forfeited property. United States v. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars, 730 F.2d 1437, 1439 (11th Cir.1984). "[P]ossession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture." United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. One 1945 Douglas C-54 (DC-4) Aircraft, 604 F.2d 27, 28 (8th Cir.1979).
Although Stage was listed as the title owner of an undivided 41.65% interest in the property, the district court held that Stage was a mere "nominal owner." Our review of the record satisfies us that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Stage presented no documentary evidence regarding his finances or payments with respect to the purchase of the property. He could not remember how much he had contributed, or the amounts that others had loaned to him. Stage claims that he paid property taxes on the land for at least two years but has no record or writing to support this claim. Weighing the credibility of the evidence, the district court found that Stage had failed to meet his burden of proving more than nominal ownership.
Further, we would reject Stage's claim that he was an "innocent owner". Section 881(a)(7) provides in relevant part:
no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.
The district court rejected the innocent owner defense because Stage was aware of the illegal activities occurring on the property. Stage argues that he is an innocent owner if he can show he was without knowledge of the illegal activities or if he can show he did not consent to them. We reject this interpretation.
A congressional joint committee report explaining the identical language...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Kalahasthi v. U.S.
... ... characterization of certain actions of the state probate court. Plaintiff asserts that the probate ... stands for the proposition "that a word is known by the company it keeps." Jarecki v. G.D. Searle ... ) way of saying what common sense tells us to be true: `[A] word is known by the company it ... One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Nava, 03-30010.
... ... ("Once ownership interests are defined under state law, however, the federal forfeiture statutes ... every recorded deed and wreak havoc in the county courthouse." Benson v. Diehl, 228 Mont. 199, ... record owner who has acquired title to the land by conventional means," the "two historically ... One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per ... Recognizing that § 853( o ) imposes upon us the obligation to construe § 853 liberally, I ... Victor was known in the community as a drug dealer. Also, there is ... ...
-
United States v. Sum of $70,990,605
... ... of international comity and the act of state doctrine. Dkt. 138. For the reasons explained ... evidence to the accusations from the US legal and judicial bodies, but the legal and ... Claimants assert that Yaser Elham is also known as Najibullah, Dkt. 24 at 15; Dkt. 341 at 12, and ... One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111B , 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 ... ...
-
U.S. v. Funds from Prudential Securities
... ... on oath or solemn affirmation, and shall state the interest in the property by virtue of which ... One Parcel Real Prop., 942 F.2d 74, 77 (1st Cir.1991); ... One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (observing ... ...
-
Beginner's Guide to Federal Forfeiture
...965 F.2d at 876, 877. 38. 18 U.S.C. § 983 (d)(1). 39. 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4). 40. See, e.g., United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990) ("lack of knowledge" and "consent" are conjunctive terms, and claimant must prove lack of both); United States v. 141st Street......