United States v. Dorman
Decision Date | 17 July 2014 |
Docket Number | Case No. 8:13–cr–370–T–24EAJ. |
Citation | 38 F.Supp.3d 1328 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Lawrence H. DORMAN. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Stacie B. Harris, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.
FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR REAL PROPERTY
This cause comes before the Court upon the United States opposed motion for a Final Judgment of Forfeiture for:
The Court finds that, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) and Rule 32.2(b)(6)(C), the United States published notice of the forfeiture and of its intent to dispose of the Property on the official government website, www. forfeiture.gov, from February 19, 2014 through March 20, 2014. Doc. 41. The publication gave notice to all third parties with a legal interest in the assets to file with the Office of the Clerk—United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Sam Gibbons Federal Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, 33602—a petition to adjudicate their interests within 60 days of the first date of publication. Doc. 47, p. 3.
In addition, in accordance with the requirements of 21 U.S.C. § 853(n), the United States sent notice of this forfeiture action and instructions on filing a claim to the assets, via certified and first class mail, to Iris Dorman. Doc. 47, p. 2. Ms. Dorman is the defendant's mother and the only party believed to have any potential interest in the Property. Id.
The time for filing a petition has passed and no person, other than Ms. Dorman, filed a claim to the Property. On, March 21, 2014, Ms. Dorman (“Claimant”), filed a claim to the Property, stating that she bought the Property to provide her son with a home where she could easily check-up on him. Doc. 42. Unlike the Claimant, the defendant lived on the Property and admitted to using drugs and producing child pornography on the Property. Doc. 27, pp. 22–24.
The deed shows that the Claimant and the Defendant are listed on the deed as “joint tenants with right of survivorship.” The United States does not dispute that Claimant—as one of the two joint tenants on the deed—has a one-half interest in the Property. The United States does not seek to forfeit Claimant's interest in the Property. The United States seeks to forfeit only the defendant's one-half interest in it. The Claimant, in turn, claims that she has a 100% interest in the Property and that the United States is not entitled to forfeit any portion of the Property.
Subsequent to an evidentiary hearing, the Court finds that the house was purchased with the Defendant's funds, that he homesteaded it in his name, and that he—and not the Claimant—exercised dominion and control over the Property. Thus, the Court finds that the Claimant does not have a 100% interest in the Property. Rather, the Defendant and Claimant each have a ½ interest in the Property, by virtue of the deed. See Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand & Associates, 780 So.2d 45, 52 (Fla.2001) ().
When the defendant owns real property with innocent parties, section 853 requires a partial forfeiture. See, e.g., United States v. Fleet, 498 F.3d 1225, 1230–31 (11th Cir.2007) ( ). This is so because “[u]nlike its civil forfeiture counterpart, the criminal forfeiture statute ... contains no innocent owner exception.” Fleet, 498 F.3d at 1231.
A defendant's interest can be forfeited even when alienation of that interest is prohibited by state law. See 21 U.S.C. § 853(a) ( ); see also Fleet, 498 F.3d at 1230–31 ( ).
State and federal law, as well as with the Defendant's plea agreement, thus demonstrate that the Defendant's interest in the Property should be forfeited to the United States.
Once the United States has complied with noticing procedures and the Court has disposed of all claims to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial