0.089 Acres of Land Blk: 015, Lot: 12, Addn: Superior SEC 3 Physically Located at 3607 Tampico Dr., Midland, Texas, Midland County, Texas v. State
11-13-00306-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 31, 2015Background
- A spendthrift trust created in Arizona for beneficiary Robert Jason Parks purchased 3607 Tampico Dr., Midland, TX, using trust funds; trustee Ruth Hughes (later succeeded by her husband James) managed the property and placed Parks there to live.
- Parks lived in the house from Feb 2011 until State seizure in May 2012; roommates paid modest utilities; the trust paid most expenses and taxes.
- Midland police investigation tied Parks and co-defendant Charles Pittman to a mid-level heroin distribution operation operating from the Tampico property; controlled buys and a warrant search produced scales, packaging materials, foil, and a knife with heroin residue.
- Parks pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute and possess 100 grams or more of heroin and was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment.
- The State filed an amended notice of seizure and intent to forfeit under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 59; after a bench trial the trial court forfeited the property to the State. The trust (as appellant) appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trust) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law | Arizona trust law governs; trial court should have applied Arizona law per trust instrument | No proof of differing Arizona law was offered; Texas law presumed | Waived by trust for failure to prove or request judicial notice; Texas law applied |
| Ownership / standing | Trial court erred by not requiring State to prove who owned the property and by treating trust as subject to forfeiture | State need only prove property was contraband and probable cause for seizure; beneficiary has equitable title if needed | Ownership proof not required; beneficiary equitably owns trust property; issues waived if not raised at trial |
| Innocent-owner affirmative defense | Trust proved it acquired property before lis pendens and did not know nor should have known property would be used for illegal activity | Evidence showed facts that should have put trustee on notice (Parks’ criminal history, residency, lack of rent contributions, trust involvement) | Trial court correctly found trust failed to meet its burden; legally and factually sufficient evidence supports denial of innocent-owner defense |
| Probable cause for seizure / contraband status | (Implicit) Trust challenged seizure relevance | State showed nexus between property and drug distribution (controlled buys, paraphernalia, residue, Parks’ guilty plea) | Probable cause and substantial connection to criminal activity supported; forfeiture proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogletree v. Crates, 363 S.W.2d 431 (Tex. 1963) (absence of proof of other state law means courts may assume laws are the same)
- Fifty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars in U.S. Currency v. State, 730 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. 1987) (probable cause in forfeiture exists when reasonable belief of substantial connection between property and criminal activity)
- City of Mesquite v. Malouf, 553 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1977) (beneficiary of a valid trust holds equitable/beneficial title and is treated as real owner)
- Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1989) (standards for legal-sufficiency review when the appellant had the burden of proof)
- Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (appellate standard for when contrary proposition must be conclusively established)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (factual-sufficiency standard and appellate weighing of evidence)
We affirm the trial court’s forfeiture judgment.