United States v. Buchanan
3:15-cr-00037
M.D. Tenn.Apr 13, 2022Background:
- Defendant Benjamin Bradley was indicted; he was arrested March 12, 2015 and remained in custody. The government presented evidence that Bradley bought the Belleville, MI property (45669 Harmony Lane) with drug-conspiracy proceeds between 2012–2014.
- A deed purporting to transfer the Harmony Lane Property from Bradley to his then-wife Kareema Hawkins dated April 23, 2015 was shown to be forged or notarized improperly.
- The district court entered a preliminary order of forfeiture (finding the Property forfeitable); that decision was affirmed on appeal (Sixth Circuit). The government later provided direct notice of the forfeiture to Hawkins in late 2021.
- Hawkins filed an emergency motion to extend time and an unverified "Property Claim" (via an attorney who later disappeared), attaching a 2021 divorce decree awarding her the property and asserting an innocent-owner defense.
- The government moved for a final order of forfeiture as to the Harmony Lane Property and certain currency; it opposed Hawkins’ late, unverified claim and argued she has no superior legal interest.
- The court granted Hawkins’ motion for extension but denied her claim as untimely, unverified, and meritless on the merits; it entered a final forfeiture order for the Harmony Lane Property (and currency).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and statutory form of third-party claim under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) | Hawkins received notice in Dec 2021; claim filed late and was not signed under penalty of perjury so should be rejected | Hawkins asked for extension and urged equities; argued delay did not prejudice government | Court granted extension but denied claim: petition untimely and not verified as required by §853(n) |
| Whether Hawkins held superior legal title at time of predicate offenses (§ 853(n)(6)(A)) | Government: Bradley purchased property with proceeds during the conspiracy; title vested in government by relation-back, so Hawkins never had superior interest | Hawkins claimed the 2015 conveyance and the 2021 divorce vested title in her | Court: Hawkins cannot show title ever vested in her superior to Bradley; forfeiture stands |
| Bona fide purchaser / innocent-owner defense (§ 853(n)(6)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)) | Government: Hawkins was on notice and property traceable to criminal proceeds; divorce occurred after government's interest vested | Hawkins: claimed primary residence, divorce award, and asserted innocent-owner protections | Court: Hawkins not a bona fide purchaser; she was on notice by 2017; property traceable to criminal proceeds; innocent-owner claim fails |
| Need for ancillary hearing under Rule 32.2 / §853(n) | Government: claim lacks statutory sufficiency and merits dismissal without hearing | Hawkins implied factual disputes require adjudication | Court: No hearing required because claim lacks merit as a matter of law and fails statutory prerequisites |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bradley, 897 F.3d 779 (6th Cir. 2018) (appellate decision reversing and vacating earlier district forfeiture order)
- United States v. Bradley, 969 F.3d 585 (6th Cir. 2020) (affirming district court finding property forfeitable based on proceeds traceable to criminal activity)
- Huntington Nat. Bank v. 682 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2012) (discussing relation-back doctrine and government's vesting of title under § 853(c))
- United States v. Harris, 246 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2001) (relation-back and forfeiture principles)
- United States v. Galemmo, [citation="661 F. App'x 294"] (6th Cir. 2016) (explaining § 853(n)(6) alternatives for third-party claimants)
- United States v. Alquzah, 91 F. Supp. 3d 818 (W.D.N.C. 2015) (ancillary hearing unnecessary where claim lacks legal merit)