United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111 Tax Map Key 4, 902 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111 Tax Map Key 4, 902 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“f the claimant either knew or consented to the illegal activities, the innocent owner' defense is unavailable.”
93 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266 Ex Rel. Goodman (ca3, 1994-11-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 39 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. One 1973 Rolls Royce, V.I.N. SRH-16266 Ex Rel. Goodman (3×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
3rd Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
f the claimant either knew or consented to the illegal activities, the innocent owner' defense is unavailable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sum of $70,990,605
D.D.C. · 2017 · confidence medium
Courts have recognized that “[possession of mere legal title,” without more, “by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture.” United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir. 1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Kalahasthi v. United States
C.D. Cal. · 2008 · confidence medium
The Joint Committee’s views, however, are entitled to great respect”); see also Pierce v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 638, 650 (Fed.Cl.2007) (“Congress’ intent is also found in the Joint Committee’s General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and Joint Committee’s Technical Explanation of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006”); United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (“A congressional joint committee report explaining the identical language of Section 881(a)(6) leaves no doubt as to the proper interpretation of the '…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. $57,790 In U.S. Currency
9th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
United States v. Section 18, 976 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir.1992), and United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam), do not establish a higher burden for showing Article III standing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Victor Robert Nava, Sr., AKA Big Vic, and Victoria Nava (2×)
9th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
We have observed the ‘possession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture.' ” United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir.1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Funds From Prudential Securities
D.D.C. · 2004 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Two Dollars, in U.S. Currency, 47 F.3d 972, 973 (8th Cir.1995) (declining to disturb the district court’s decision to strike the claims and answers of a claimant asserting merely a “possessory interest” in the seized funds); $38,570 U.S. Currency, 950 F.2d at 1112 (holding that a “bare assertion of ownership of the res, without more, is inadequate to prove an ownership interest sufficient to establish standing”); United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (observing that the claimant had no…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. $ 57,790.00 in United States Currency
S.D. Cal. · 2003 · confidence medium
For example, in United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the claimant did not have standing, noting that although the claimant was listed as the title owner of an interest in the property, the claimant “presented no documentary evidence regarding his finances or payments with respect to the purchase of the property.” Id. at 1445 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Star Route, Box 63, Oroville, Washington, Together With All Appurtenances and Improvements Thereto or Thereupon (2×)
9th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
While "[t]he claimant in a forfeiture action has the burden of showing that he owns or has an interest in the forfeited property," United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1444 (9th Cir.1990), she must also demonstrate that her interest is "more than nominal." Id. at 1445.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bob Olsen, Devon Aviation, Fausto Cardenas, and Cesar Medina v. United States
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Even though Olsen possessed the plane's documents and F.A.A. records reflected a bill of sale from Frank Burdick to Bob Olsen of Devon Aviation, Olsen himself had not come forward with evidence of his possession and control over the property. "'[P]ossession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient ... to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture."' United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir. 1986)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. 6640 SW 48th St.
11th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
For a conjunctive reading, see United States v. Land at Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. 1992 Team Warlock 28' World Twin Hull Speedboat
unknown court · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. $20,193.39 U.S. Currency
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Vacant Land Located at 10th St. And Challenger Way in Palmdale, Ca., Peter J. Baxter and Frank Edward Gegax, Claimants-Appellants
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS Baxter’s Standing “ ‘[Plossession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture.’ ” United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. One 1945 Douglas C-54 (DC-4) Aircraft, 604 F.2d 27, 28 (8th Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Real Property Located at 414 Riverside Road, Oakview, Ca., and Louis A. Stone, Claimant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
To establish innocent ownership, the claimant must prove that "he neither knew of nor consented to the illegal activity on which the forfeiture action is based." United States v. Real Property Located at Section 18, 976 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Vacant Land Located at 10th St. And Challenger Way in Palmdale, Ca, Peter J. Baxter and Frank Edward Gegax, Claimants-Appellants
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
ANALYSIS Baxter’s Standing “ ‘[Possession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture.’ ” United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (quoting United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. One 1945 Douglas C-54 (DC-4) Aircraft, 604 F.2d 27, 28 (8th Cir.1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. 105,800 Shares of Common Stock of Firstrock Bancorp, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 1993 · confidence medium
United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. 526 Liscum Dr., 866 F.2d 213 , 217 (6th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. One 1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Vehicle Identification Number 1G1GZ37G2GR201549 (2×)
N.D. Ill. · 1993 · confidence medium
United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars, 730 F.2d 1437, 1439 (11th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) J.M.S. Farms, Inc. v. Department of Wildlife
Wash. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Farms should be required to prove both lack of knowledge and lack of consent, citing United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Premises Known as 717 South Woodard Street
E.D. Pa. · 1992 · confidence medium
Id. at 985 ; United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990); Liscum Drive, 866 F.2d at 217 ; United States v. A Single Family Residence and Real Property Located at 900 Rio Vista Blvd., 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir.1986) [hereinafter 900 Rio Vista Blvd.].
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nos. 91-35121, 91-35158
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. One Parcel of Land, Etc., 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990). 25 Malmgren asserts that he had a meritricious relationship with Carlson which gave him an interest in the land.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Section 18, Township 23, Range 9, Sunnyview Plat, Lots 4 & 5, Block 4
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
United States v. One Parcel of Land, Etc., 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. $38,570 U.S. Currency, Francisco Flores, Jr., Claimant-Appellant
5th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Finally, in U.S. v. One Parcel of Land, Known As Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990), the Ninth Circuit held that the claimant had no standing where he failed to present documentary evidence regarding the purchase of the real property or the payment of taxes on the property subject to the forfeiture action.
examined Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Forfeiture, Stop Six Center (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Tex. · 1991 · confidence medium
See United States v. Real Property at 5000 Palmetto Drive, 928 F.2d 373, 375 (11th Cir.1991) (“possession of bare legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture”); United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (“possession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. 5.935 Acres of Land, Tax Map Key (3)2-8-017-43 (2×)
D. Haw. · 1990 · confidence medium
Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d at 1445.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Approximately $417,148.06 in U.S. Currency Seized from Bank of America Account No. 08067-05302
9th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. One 1986 Dassault Falcon 50, XA-RXZ
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (Regardless of the fact that claimant was listed as the title owner of an undivided 41.65% interest in the property, the court found that claimant was still a mere "nominal owner," and thus lacked standing to challenge the forfeiture.); United States v. One 1945 Douglas C-54, 604 F.2d 27, 28-29 (8th Cir.1979) ("The mere fact that the certificate of aircraft registration was issued to [claimant] does not determine rights of ownership in the aircraft...."). 13 Probable Cause to Forfeit Defendant Prop…
discussed Cited "see" 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1414, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2423 United States of America v. Francisco Alcaraz-Garcia v. Raul D. Covarrubias Daniel Haro Javier Aguirre, Third-Party-Defendants-Appellants
3rd Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (finding of nominal ownership in forfeiture action not clearly erroneous). 4 B.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Alcaraz-Garcia
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (finding of nominal ownership in forfeiture action not clearly erroneous). 4 B.
cited Cited "see" United States v. One Parcel Property at 427 & 429 Hall St.
M.D. Ala. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, etc., 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" United States v. One Parcel of Real Estate
S.D. Fla. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (“If the claimant either knew or consented to the illegal activities, the innocent owner defense is unavailable.”).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Forfeiture, Stop Six Center
N.D. Tex. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990); United States v. Premises Known as 526 Liscum Drive, 866 F.2d 213, 217 (6th Cir.1989).
cited Cited "see" United States v. 8848 South Commercial St., Chicago, Ill.
N.D. Ill. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990).
cited Cited "see" United States v. 141st Street Corp. ex rel. Hersh
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2d Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" United States v. All Monies ($637,944.57) in Account No. 29-0101-62
D. Haw. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. One Parcel Of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, 902 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. $639,470.00 U.S. Currency
C.D. Cal. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See e.g., United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (innocent owner defense requires claimant to prove he did not know of or consent to the illegal use of the property).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. $277,000.00 U.S. Currency One 1986 Dodge Ram Charger, Jalisco, Mexico Lic. No. Hwy773, and Ramon S. Montes, Claimant-Appellant (2×)
9th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., United States v. One Parcel of Land, 902 F.2d 1443, 1444 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam); see also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 130 n. 1, 99 S.Ct. 421 , 424 n. 1, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978) (motion to suppress proponent has burden to establish violation of Fourth Amendment rights).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. a Parcel of Land in City of Lucedale
S.D. Miss. · 1991 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. 141st Street Corp., by Hersh, 911 F.2d 870, 878 (2d Cir.1990) (holding that “a *1152 claimant may avoid forfeiture by establishing either that he had no knowledge of the narcotics activity or, if he had knowledge, that he did not consent to it”) with United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “if the claimant either knewor consented to the illegal activities, the ‘innocent owner’ defense is unavailable” (emphasis in …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 89-2910
5th Cir. · 1990 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. 141st Street Corp., by Hersh, 911 F.2d 870, 878 (2d Cir.1990) (holding that "a claimant may avoid forfeiture by establishing either that he had no knowledge of the narcotics activity or, if he had knowledge, that he did not consent to it") with United States v. One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County, State of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1443 , 1445 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that "if the claimant either knew or consented to the illegal activities, the 'innocent owner' defense is unavailable" (emphasis in original)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
One Parcel of Land, Known as Lot 111-B, Tax Map Key 4-4-03-71(4), Waipouli, Kapaa, Island and County of Kauai, State of Hawaii, Together With Appurtenances and Improvements, Appeal of Richard Stage, Claimant-Appellant
89-15409.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 10, 1990.
902 F.2d 1443
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 71%
Citer courts: Third Circuit (1)

902 F.2d 1443

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ONE PARCEL OF LAND, KNOWN AS LOT 111-B, TAX MAP KEY
4-4-03-71(4), WAIPOULI, KAPAA, ISLAND AND COUNTY
OF KAUAI, STATE OF HAWAII, Together With
Appurtenances and
Improvements, Defendant.
Appeal of Richard STAGE, Claimant-Appellant.

No. 89-15409.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 1990[*].
Decided May 10, 1990.

Philip D. Bogetto, Honolulu, Hawaii, for claimant-appellant.

Florence T. Nakakuni, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, Hawaii, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Before FARRIS, PREGERSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~1443]1

Richard Stage appeals the district court's denial of his claim for return of property forfeited pursuant to 21 U.S.C. Sec. 881. The district court held that Stage was a "nominal owner" lacking standing to challenge the forfeiture. Alternatively, the court held that Stage did not qualify as an "innocent owner." We affirm.

DISCUSSION

2

The district court found that the government had satisfied its burden of showing probable cause that the property was used or intended for use in a manner to facilitate the commission of a federal narcotics offense. Stage does not dispute that the property was used for unlawful purposes, but argues that he is an "innocent owner" pursuant to section 881(a)(7).

3

The claimant in a forfeiture action has the burden of showing that he owns or has an interest in the forfeited property. United States v. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars, 730 F.2d 1437, 1439 (11th Cir.1984). "[P]ossession of mere legal title by one who does not exercise dominion and control over the property is insufficient even to establish standing to challenge a forfeiture." United States v. A Single Family Residence, 803 F.2d 625, 630 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. One 1945 Douglas C-54 (DC-4) Aircraft, 604 F.2d 27, 28 (8th Cir.1979).

4

Although Stage was listed as the title owner of an undivided 41.65% interest in the property, the district court held that Stage was a mere "nominal owner." Our review of the record satisfies us that the district court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Stage presented no documentary evidence regarding his finances or payments with respect to the purchase of the property. He could not remember how much he had contributed, or the amounts that others had loaned to him. Stage claims that he paid property taxes on the land for at least two years but has no record or writing to support this claim. Weighing the credibility of the evidence, the district court found that Stage had failed to meet his burden of proving more than nominal ownership.

5

Further, we would reject Stage's claim that he was an "innocent owner". Section 881(a)(7) provides in relevant part:

6

no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.

7

The district court rejected the innocent owner defense because Stage was aware of the illegal activities occurring on the property. Stage argues that he is an innocent owner if he can show he was without knowledge of the illegal activities or if he can show he did not consent to them. We reject this interpretation.

8

A congressional joint committee report explaining the identical language of Section 881(a)(6) leaves no doubt as to the proper interpretation of the "knew or consented" language. The report states:

9

Specifically, the property would not be subject to forfeiture unless the owner of such property knew or consented to the [illegal conduct].

[*~1443]10

Joint Explanatory Statement of Titles II and III, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong.Admin.News 9510, 9522-23. Thus, if the claimant either knew or consented to the illegal activities, the "innocent owner" defense is unavailable. The intent of the forfeiture provision is to seize all property that has a "substantial connection" to the illegal drug activity. Id. This policy would be substantially undercut if persons who were fully aware of the illegal connection or source of their property were permitted to reclaim the property as "innocent" owners. The policy and legislative history of the Act support the district court's interpretation. Because Stage knew of the illegal activities, his assertion of lack of consent was of no consequence.

[*~1444]11

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)