U.S. v. State, 65-147
| Decision Date | 09 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-147,65-147 |
| Citation | 179 So.2d 890 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida and County of Dade, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., and James O. Murphy, Jr., Edward A. Kaufman and Edward I. Heilbronner, Asst. U. S. Attys., for appellant.
Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State Atty., Thomas C. Britton, County Atty., and Gerald T. Wetherington, Asst. County Atty., for appellees.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.
United States of America, intervening plaintiff below, appeals an order and final judgment of forfeiture entered in the Circuit Court of Dade County, in which the court denied the claim of the United States to certain funds seized in connection with illegal gambling. The facts essentially are as follows.
On October 19, 1961 deputies of the Sheriff of Dade County made a gambling raid, with a search warrant, on the residence of Isabell Thompson, who was then arrested and charged with the possession of lottery tickets and operating a gambling house. The raiding officers found $26,648.74 located in a room which Howard Pinder allegedly maintained at the residence. The money was turned over to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Dade County.
Prior to the raid the Internal Revenue Service had made assessments of federal wagering excise taxes against Pinder and the day following the raid they filed a notice of levy notifying the Clerk that all property in his possession belonging to Pinder was levied upon and seized for satisfaction of Pinder's tax liability. On July 9, 1962 this assessment was reduced to a final judgment against Pinder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
During the week following the raid, federal wagering excise taxes were also assessed against Thompson. The Clerk of the Circuit Court was again served with a notice of levy concerning the seized property of Thompson.
On May 16, 1962, two days after Isabell Thompson pled guilty and was adjudged guilty on the charge of possession of lottery tickets, the Criminal Court of Record ordered the money seized in the raid confiscated, forfeited and deposited in the Fine and Forfeiture Fund of Dade County, Florida.
The appellees then filed the instant suit in the Circuit Court, naming the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the United States of America as party respondents in an effort to determine who was entitled to the seized money. The United States, at its request, was dismissed as a respondent in the cause and was allowed to intervene as an intervening plaintiff. On September 4, 1962 the United States filed an intervening petition and a motion to implead Isabel Thompson. In answer to appellees' petition, Thompson denied that the seized money was ever in her custody or possession and stated that she had no interest or claim in the seized funds.
On April 8, 1964 the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Pinder v. United States, 330 F.2d 119 affirmed the decision of the Federal District Court, wherein Howard Pinder was held liable for the federal wagering excise tax. On September 18, 1964, the United States filed a motion to amend its intervening complaint and to implead Pinder. The Circuit Court orally denied the motion to amend the intervening complaint and entered an order denying the motion to implead Pinder on the ground that it was 'untimely and not authorized or permitted by statute or rule * * *'.
The United States again sought to implead Pinder as a necessary and indispensable party to the action, claiming that the seized amounts belonged to him at the time of the raid. In the alternative, the United States moved that the case be dismissed on the ground that an indispensable party had not been joined. The United States then moved the court to make a determination that the seized money belonged to Pinder and that the court order the Clerk to honor the levy placed against him by the United States. On the same day, the trial court entered its order and final judgment of forfeiture, from which this appeal is taken.
It is clear that all the facts concerning the Pinder claim were in the possession of the appellant on or before it filed its original petition and motion to implead Isabell Thompson on September 4, 1962. No action was taken by the appellant in furtherance of its alleged claim against Pinder however, until September 18, 1964, more than two years after commencement of the action against Thompson. Appellant asserts its reason for delay was that the Pinder claim was on appeal to the Fifth Circuit and was not affirmed until April 8, 1964. The record reflects, however, that the final judgment in favor of appellant against Pinder was entered on July 9, 1962 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The procedural rights of an intervenor (appellant) were set forth in Krouse v. Palmer, 1938, 131 Fla. 444, 179 So. 762, wherein the Supreme Court said:
* * *
* * *
(Emphasis added)
* * *
* * *
The Circuit Courts of Florida have broad, although not unlimited discretion in allowing amendments to pleadings. Corbett v . Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 196. While our courts are generally liberal in permitting the amendment of pleadings, this 'liberality' gradually diminishes as the case progresses. Dunn v. Campbell, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 217.
In line with this principle there are a vast number of federal cases construing the effect of Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is identical to Rule 1.15, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A. Decisions of the Federal courts construing federal rules of procedure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. Jones
...Court. Griffin v. State, 202 So.2d 602 (Fla.App.1st, 1967); Roberts v. State, 199 So.2d 340 (Fla.App.2d, 1967); and United States v. State, 179 So.2d 890 (Fla.App.3d, 1965). To allow a District Court of Appeal to overrule controlling precedent of this Court would be to create chaos and unce......
-
Faircloth v. Mr. Boston Distiller Corp.
...(1938); Florida Gas Co. v. American Employers' Insurance Co., 218 So.2d 197 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969); and United States v. State of Florida, 179 So.2d 890 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1965). 39 Am.Jur. Parties § 61 (1942), and cases cited therein.3 'Laws. Every law shall embrace but one subject and......
-
2765 South Bayshore Drive Corp. v. Fred Howland, Inc., 67--601
...appellant has failed to allege or demonstrate an abuse of that discretion. McSwiggan v. Edson, Fla.1966, 186 So.2d 13; United States v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 890; Corbett v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 196; Houston Texas Gas & Oil Corp. v. Hoeffner, Fla.App.196......
-
Metropolitan Dade County v. U.S.
...on point: State v. Twenty-Six Thousand, Six Hundred, Forty-Eight Dollars and Seventy-Four Cents, 15 A.F.T.R.2d 271 (1964), aff'd 179 So.2d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). In that case the circuit court determined that funds seized from a gambling house, and upon which the IRS subsequently filed lie......