United States v. Singleton
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81149
| D. Del. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Katrina Beverly, in a long-term relationship with Keith Singleton, seeks return of the Property forfeited as part of Singleton's criminal conviction.
- Singleton was convicted at a jury trial of wire fraud and money laundering; the Property was found subject to forfeiture via a Rule 32.2(b)(5) special verdict.
- A final order of forfeiture was entered on November 29, 2011; the only claim filed was by Wells Fargo.
- USMS posted notices and engaged in eviction/possession activities; Beverly asserts she has an interest in the Property due to mortgage payments made.
- Beverly did not appear on the deed or mortgage; she did not file a 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) petition within the applicable window; the court held she had notice and opportunity to pursue that route.
- The court denied Beverly's Rule 41(g) motion, determining it should be handled through civil equitable jurisdiction and, alternatively, through Rule 60(b) relief, which was also declined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should exercise equitable jurisdiction under Rule 41(g). | Beverly asserts she has an interest superior to Singleton and seeks return of the Property. | Singleton challenges Beverly's substantive interest and the propriety of equitable intervention given final forfeiture. | Denied; court declined to exercise equitable jurisdiction. |
| Whether Beverly has a legally cognizable interest in the Property. | Beverly paid mortgage and other housing expenses implying an ownership-like interest. | Debt and title show ownership solely in Singleton; Beverly lacks recorded interest. | Beverly has no legally cognizable interest; interest not reflected in instruments. |
| Whether Beverly could have pursued a § 853(n) petition or other adequate remedy at law. | Beverly did not timely file under § 853(n). | The government properly notified and the absence of timely § 853(n) petitions defeats return under 41(g). | Untimely or unavailable; adequate remedy at law does not favor return. |
| If not under Rule 41(g), whether Rule 60(b) relief could be available to Beverly. | Rule 60(b) could provide relief from judgment where appropriate. | Rule 60(b) relief is inappropriate and would be denied under discretionary standards. | Rule 60(b) relief denied; not warranted given the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999) (ancillary jurisdiction and Rule 41(g) considerations)
- Cauwenberghe v. United States, 934 F.2d 1048 (9th Cir. 1991) (framework for Rule 41(g) determinations and forfeiture)
- Gmach Shefa Chaim v. United States, 692 F. Supp. 2d 461 (D.N.J. 2010) (four-factor equitable-jurisdiction test; irreparable harm emphasis)
- United States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2000) (ancillary jurisdiction and 41(g) limitations)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 414 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b) as potential relief vehicle when § 853(n) is untimely)
- United States v. McGlory, 202 F.3d 664 (3d Cir. 2000) (forfeiture and post-conviction procedures)