18 U.S.C. § 985
Civil forfeiture of real property
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (c)(2)(B), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
Section applicable to any forfeiture proceeding commenced on or after the date that is 120 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: United States v. Bowman
United States v. Bowman (2003)
“Following the seizure, the Bowmans received a post-seizure adversarial hearing, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 985 (e), at which they contested the basis for the ex parte seizure.”
Langbord v. United States Department of the Treasury (2016)
“See also 18 U.S.C. § 985 (b)(1)(A) (stating the general rule that “real property that is the subject of a civil forfeiture action shall not be seized before entry of an order of forfeiture”).”
United States v. 630 Ardmore Dr., City of Durham, Parkwood (2001)
“18 U.S.C. § 985 (a). Under the new CAFRA provisions, the Government is not required to procure the summons and warrant for arrest in rem specified in the Supplemental Rules.”
United States v. Real Property Known as 200 Acres of Land Near FM 2686 Rio Grande City (2014)
“*659 If the defendant in an in rem forfeiture action is real property, the government must proceed in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 985 . See Supplemental Rule G(3)(a).”
United States v. Real Property Located at 730 Glen-Mady Way (2008)
“18 U.S.C. § 985 (c)(3) (“If real property has been posted in accordance with this subsection, it shall not be necessary for the court to issue an arrest warrant in rem, or to take any other action to establish in rem jurisdiction over the property”); see also Supplemental Rule…”
United States v. Certain Real Property Located at 263 Weatherbrook Lane (2002)
“On January 23, 2002, the Government made an ex parte application to this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 985 (d)(1)(B)(ii), for the issuance of a warrant for seizure of the subject real property.”
United States v. Real Property Located at 11211 East Arabian Park Drive (2005)
“The Government contends that 18 U.S.C. § 985 (b)(2) “allows for a writ of entry” for the purpose of inspection and inventory of the property but “provides no guidance as to its proper use or scope.”
United States v. Real Property Located at 14420 Tukwila International Boulevard (2013)
“) On August 26, 2013, Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler made an ex parte determination that there was probable cause for forfeiture, and that exigent circumstances existed to permit the seizure pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 985 (d)(l)(B)(ii). In the Matter of the Seizure of Real…”
United States v. James Munson (2012)
“CAFRA provisions governing civil forfeiture of real property provide that “[t]he Government shall initiate a civil forfeiture action against real property by,” inter alia, “serving notice on the property owner, along with a copy of the complaint.”
Cindy Omidi v. United States (2017)
“18 U.S.C. § 985 (a). The same is true with respect to personal property worth more than $500,000, subject to a few exceptions not relevant here.”
Boyd v. United States of America (2016)
“Finally, the plaintiff claims that the forfeiture of his property did not comply with 18 U.S.C. § 985 (d)(1)(A), which calls for notice and a hearing prior to the seizure of real property, as well as a court order prior to forfeiture.”
United States v. Sum of $70,990,605 (2013)
“Compare 18 U.S.C. § 985 (e) (requiring a court to hold a "prompt post-seizure hearing” when real property is seized to allow a property owner to contest the basis of the seizure) with 18 U.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 985(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.