Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03255/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03255-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3255

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Three hundred fifty-three thousand * Eastern District of Missouri.

six hundred thirty dollars, in United *

States currency, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Robert F. Reiner, *

*

Claimant/Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 17, 2006

Filed: September 18, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MAGNUSON, District Judge.1

___________

ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Following the government's seizure of more than $350,000 in cash from

Robert R. Reiner, the parties to the forfeiture proceeding entered into a settlement

Appellate Case: 05-3255 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090258
2

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

agreement. Five months after the district court2

 entered an order adopting the

agreement, Robert R. Reiner, as attorney in fact for his father, Robert F. Reiner

(claimant), filed a motion for relief from the order. The district court denied the

motion. We affirm.

I.

Some time after local and federal agents began investigating the finances of the

claimant and his son, the son telephoned the local police department to request that

an officer accompany him while he took a large amount of cash to a bank. The local

police department notified Internal Revenue Service investigators, and an IRS agent

obtained a warrant to seize the cash. Shortly thereafter, the government took custody

of $353,630 from the claimant's son.

The government filed a verified complaint seeking civil forfeiture of the cash.

It alleged that the funds were withdrawn from a number of banks in a series of

transactions that were deliberately set at under $10,000 to avoid the federal reporting

requirements for cash. See 31 U.S.C. §§ 5313(a), 5317(c)(2), 5324. The parties

eventually reached a tentative settlement agreement. Although the claimant initially

refused to sign the final agreement, after the government filed a motion to enforce the

settlement in the district court, the claimant's son agreed to its terms on his father's

behalf. Under the terms of the agreement, the government was to keep most of the

funds, the claimant was to receive $80,000, and $30,000 was to go to the bankruptcy

trustee who was handling a matter related to the claimant's son. The district court

adopted the terms of the agreement and entered a final order disposing of the case.

The following year, the claimant, through his son, filed a motion in the district

court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) seeking to set the settlement agreement

Appellate Case: 05-3255 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090258
-3-

aside on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter its order.

The district court denied the motion and the claimant appealed.

II.

The absence of subject matter jurisdiction renders a judgment void "only when

there is a plain usurpation of power, when a court wrongfully extends its jurisdiction

beyond the scope of its authority." Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Great Lakes

Carbon Corp., 624 F.2d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 955

(1980). "Stated another way, such plain usurpation of power occurs when there is a

'total want of jurisdiction' as distinguished from 'an error in the exercise of

jurisdiction.' " Id. (quoting Lubben v. Selective Serv. Sys., 453 F.2d 645, 649 (1st Cir.

1972)). Although we have sometimes said that relief from a judgment under Rule

60(b) is an extraordinary remedy left to the discretion of the district court, relief from

a judgment that is void under Rule 60(b)(4) is not discretionary. Hunter v.

Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004). Thus, while Rule 60(b) dispositions

are generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., Miller v. Baker Implement

Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006), where there are no disputes over the facts

pertaining to jurisdiction, an order denying relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) is

reviewed de novo. See Central Vermont Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Herbert, 341 F.3d 186,

189 (2d Cir. 2003); Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.

denied, 525 U.S. 1041 (1998).

The claimant contends that because the funds seized in this case were not the

instrumentalities of any illegal conduct, they were not subject to forfeiture. But his

argument challenges the legality of the forfeiture itself, not the district court's

jurisdiction over the forfeiture action. The federal district courts have subject matter

jurisdiction over civil forfeiture actions because they are "commenced by the United

States," 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and are "action[s] or proceeding[s] for the recovery or

enforcement of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture ... incurred under any Act of

Congress," 28 U.S.C. § 1355; cf. United States v. 5708 Beacon Drive, 712 F. Supp.

Appellate Case: 05-3255 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090258
-4-

525, 526 (S.D. Miss. 1988), aff'd without opinion, 875 F.2d 859 (5th Cir. 1989);

United States v. United States Currency in the Amount of $23,481, 740 F. Supp. 950,

952 (E.D. N.Y. 1990). Congress has for a number of years authorized the forfeiture

of assets withdrawn in a manner purposely designed to avoid federal reporting

requirements. See Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Title I, § 1366(a), Pub. L. No. 99-

570, 100 Stat. 3207-35 (Oct. 27, 1986) (codified as amended at 31 U.S.C. § 5317).

Regardless of the merits of the claimant's argument that the government cannot prove

that the money at issue was subject to forfeiture under federal law, he cannot succeed

on a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. The claimant's motion does not allow us to review the

underlying judgment; we are confined to determining whether the district court erred

in dismissing the Rule 60(b)(4) motion. Hunter, 362 F.3d at 475. No such error

occurred here.

III.

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3255 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/18/2006 Entry ID: 2090258