Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury, 783 F.3d 441

Background

The Langbords discovered ten 1933 $20 "double eagle" gold coins and submitted them to the U.S. Mint for authentication while expressly reserving ownership rights.
The Secret Service seized the coins; the Mint and Treasury took the position the coins were U.S. government property and declined to pursue forfeiture, returning the Langbords’ seized-asset claim “without action.”
The Langbords filed suit (APA, CAFRA, constitutional and FTCA claims). The District Court held the seizure unconstitutional and ordered the Government either to return the coins or to institute judicial forfeiture; it denied that CAFRA’s 90-day deadline applied because it believed administrative forfeiture only begins upon notice.
The Government later filed a judicial forfeiture complaint; after a jury trial the jury found the coins stolen from the Mint and the District Court entered forfeiture and a declaratory judgment that the coins remained U.S. property.
On appeal the Third Circuit majority held CAFRA’s §983(a)(3)(A) 90-day deadline was triggered by the Langbords’ seized-asset claim and, because the Government neither returned the coins nor filed within 90 days, the coins must be returned and later orders (including the jury verdict and declaratory judgment) were vacated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CAFRA §983(a)(3)(A)’s 90‑day requirement applied and what triggers it	Langbords: a seized-asset claim triggers §983(a)(3) regardless of whether the gov’t sent §983(a)(1) notice; Gov’t must return property or file in 90 days	Government: §983(a)(3) applies only if a nonjudicial forfeiture was initiated by government notice under §983(a)(1); without notice CAFRA deadlines do not apply	Held: §983(a)(2) and (3) operate independently of §983(a)(1); a nonjudicial forfeiture is triggered by seizure and the seized-asset claim invoked the 90‑day deadline.
Remedy for Government’s failure to act within 90 days	Langbords: failure to file or return requires release and bars further civil forfeiture	Government: missed deadline should not automatically entitle claimants to return; courts can still adjudicate ownership	Held: Failure to file or return within 90 days requires prompt release of property and bars further civil forfeiture in connection with the underlying offense; court ordered return and vacated later forfeiture judgment.
Whether Government could use declaratory judgment to avoid CAFRA deadlines	Langbords: declaratory action was an attempt to circumvent CAFRA and should be vacated	Government: declaratory relief permissible and distinct from forfeiture remedy	Held: Declaratory judgment vacated — it cannot be used to circumvent CAFRA, and CAFRA is a special statutory proceeding precluding such appropriation of relief here.
Application of CAFRA to alleged stolen government property (18 U.S.C. §641)	Langbords: CAFRA applies to stolen government property; statute expressly covers §641 offenses	Government: originally argued stolen government property falls outside CAFRA; also raised agency‑authorization and good‑cause extension defenses	Held: CAFRA applies; §641 offenses fall within CAFRA’s scope; other proffered exceptions (value/agency/retroactive extension) fail.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Khan, 497 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (legislative purpose for CAFRA to curb government overreach)
United States v. Sum of $185,336.07 U.S. Currency, 731 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2013) (CAFRA increases government’s burden in forfeiture actions)
Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992) (seizure occurs when possessory interests are meaningfully interfered with)
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984) (definition of ‘‘seizure’’ for Fourth Amendment purposes)
Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries Ltd. P’ship, 126 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 1997) (declaratory judgment cannot be used to evade statutory limitations when claims are essentially the same)
Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010) (statutory time directives may be legally enforceable without stripping authority to act if missed)
United States v. $8,850 in U.S. Currency, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) (government delay in commencing forfeiture does not necessarily violate due process)
United States v. Vazquez‑Alvarez, 760 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2014) (CAFRA time limits viewed as claims‑processing rules, not jurisdictional)
United States v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2012) (the §983(a)(3) timeline is mandatory but not jurisdictional; late objections may be forfeited)
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (declaratory relief inappropriate where a special statutory proceeding is provided)