US v. ONE 1978 BMW VIN NO. 5391202, Civ. A. No. 84-2968-Y.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 84-2968-Y. |
| Citation | 624 F. Supp. 491 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. ONE 1978 BMW VIN NUMBER 5391202, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Asst. U.S. Atty. Jeffrey R. Martin, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Henry F. Owens, III, Ellen K. Wade, Owens & Associates, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
This is an action for judgment of forfeiture for property seized on land and subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355. The United States has moved for judgment by default. The matter was scheduled for hearing on September 18, 1985, but when neither the BMW nor its counsel appeared, the government agreed to submit the question on briefs.
The complaint in this case was filed on September 19, 1984. On October 9, 1984, the Clerk of the Court issued a Warrant and Monition directing, inter alia, service of the complaint on one Mal Johnson, the owner of record of the defendant BMW. The proof of service provided this Court indicates that Johnson was served on October 18, 1984. On November 13, 1984, Johnson filed an "Answer" contending the seizure was unlawful and demanding return of the property along with compensatory damages. The United States has moved to strike this Answer and enter judgment by default.
Proceedings in forfeiture cases involving property seized on land may be enforced by a libel action conforming as nearly as possible to a proceeding in admiralty. 28 U.S.C. § 2461(b). Rule C(6) of the Supplemental Rules For Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims provides that "the claimant of property that is the subject of an action in rem shall file his claim within 10 days after process was executed, ... and shall serve his answer within 20 days after the filing of the claim." The Rule makes plain that the "filing of a claim is a prerequisite to the right to file an answer." United States v. Fourteen Handguns, 524 F.Supp. 395, 397 (S.D.Tx.1981). In addition, the Rule requires that a claim "shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation."
In this case, Johnson's first response to the complaint — the "Answer" — was filed more than two weeks beyond the claim period provided by Rule C(6). Moreover, it was not until April 16, 1985 that Johnson filed a properly verified claim. Johnson argues that this delay should be excused because the government waited to bring this action until a time when it knew "Johnson and his attorneys were much more urgently...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Approximately Two Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty-Eight Point Eighty-Five Shares (2,538.85) of Stock Certificates of Ponce Leones Baseball Club, Inc.
...657 (1st Cir.1993); One Urban Lot, 978 F.2d at 777; One Urban Lot Located at 1 Street A-1, 885 F.2d at 1001; United States v. One 1978 BMW, 624 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.Mass.1985); see also United States v. Estevez, 845 F.2d 1409, 1412 (7th Cir.1988) (considering date that claimant received noti......
-
Sanchez v. US
...interest in contesting the forfeiture and, by requiring a sworn claim, to deter the filing of false claims."); United States v. One 1978 BMW, 624 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.Mass.1985). Where a party completely disregards the requirements of Supp. Rule C(6), dismissal of the claim by the district c......
-
US v. Funds Contained in Checking Account
...interest in contesting the forfeiture and, by requiring a sworn claim, to deter the filing of false claims."); United States v. One 1978 BMW, 624 F.Supp. 491, 492 (D.Mass.1985). Where a party completely disregards the requirements of Rule C(6), dismissal of the claim by the district court s......
-
U.S. v. Pride of Texas
...the court can properly hold the vessel in default and bar any future claims to the vessel's proceeds. See, e.g., United States v. One 1978 BMW, 624 F.Supp. 491 (D.Mass.1985) (applying the principles of admiralty and holding that a failure to meet the deadlines of Rule C(6) entitled the gove......