United States v. Burge
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145516
| C.D. Ill. | 2011Background
- Burge property in Carlinville, IL ≈20 acres titled solely to Burge; Burge moved there in 1985.
- Dianna Burge married Mark Burge in 2007 and lived on the property as spouses.
- 2010 search recovered marijuana plants, paraphernalia, firearms; both Burges provided statements.
- Dianna admitted awareness of growing marijuana and attempted to destroy evidence in a state police statement.
- 2011 federal indictment charged Burge with possession with intent to distribute; he pled guilty and forfeiture was ordered.
- Dianna filed a third-party claim alleging potential interest in the property; Government moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition complies with § 853(n)(3) | Burge argues the claim should survive despite technical flaws. | Government argues petition not signed under penalty of perjury and lacks required details. | Dismissed for failure to sign under penalty of perjury and lack of perjury certification. |
| Whether the claim states a cognizable interest under § 853(n)(6) | Burge may have a potential interest upon dissolution of marriage. | No vested or superior interest proven as of forfeiture date; proffered future interest insufficient. | Fails to allege vested or superior interest as of 8/19/2010; not a bona fide purchaser. |
| Whether the property is marital property under Illinois law | Property potentially becomes marital in dissolution; proceeds may be redirected. | Property was pre-marital; Burge owned and resided there before marriage; thus non-marital. | Property not marital; Dianna has no marital interest in the property. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salti, 579 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2009) (determines use of Illinois property rights in forfeiture context)
- United States v. Marx, 844 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1988) (multifactor approach to property rights in forfeiture)
- United States v. Speed Joyeros, S.A., 410 F. Supp. 2d 121 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (strict pleading requirements to avoid false claims in forfeiture)
- United States v. Moser, 586 F.3d 1089 (8th Cir. 2009) (ancillary proceeding under Rule 32.2 treated like civil proceeding)