Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01937-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leung Chinn
Claimant
Betty K. Chinn
Claimant
Byron Pickle
Claimant
Real Property Located at 17 Coon Creek Road, Hawkins Bar, California, APN: 008-760-12
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral *

argument. E.D. Cal. R. 230(g).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Real Property Located at 17 Coon

Creek Road, Hawkins Bar,

California, APN: 008-760-12, 

 Defendant,

________________________________

Leung Chinn, Betty K. Chinn,

Byron Pickle, 

 Claimants,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-1937-GEB-DAD

ORDER GRANTING CHINN

CLAIMANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

SALE OF DEFENDANT REAL

PROPERTY*

Claimants Leung and Betty Chinn (“Chinn Claimants”) move to

compel the sale of the defendant real property in this in rem action.

Chinn Claimaints argue their motion is brought under Rule G(7)(b)(i)(C)

of the Supplemental Rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for

Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, “so that the

sale proceeds may be substituted as the res in place of the defendant

real property in order for their lien to be satisfied with those

proceeds.” (Mot. to Compel Sale 1:8-11, ECF No. 31.) The motion is

unopposed.

Rule G(7)(b)(i)(C) prescribes: “On motion by a party . . . the

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 50 Filed 10/21/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

court may order all or part of the property sold if the property is

subject to a mortgage . . . on which the owner is in default.” Rule

G(7)(b)(iv) prescribes that the “[s]ale proceeds are a substitute res

subject to forfeiture in place of the property that was sold.”

Chinn Claimants state in their verified claim that they “sold

defendant real property to Byron Pickle” and that “their interest in the

defendant real property is solely as a mortgage holder with a mortgage

interest in the property.” (Verified Claim of Leung Chinn and Betty K.

Chinn ¶¶ 2, 7, Exs. A-D, ECF No. 12.) In support of their motion, Chinn

Claimants attached correspondence between their attorney and Pickle’s

attorney detailing Pickle’s default on the mortgage. (Chinns’ Mot. Ex

A.) Chinn Claimants evidence establishes that the defendant real

property is subject to a mortgage and that the owner is in default.

Therefore, Chinn Claimants’ motion to compel sale of the defendant real

property pursuant to Rule G(7)(b) is GRANTED.

Chinn Claimants also request “reasonable attorney fees to be

paid out of the proceeds of [the] sale” of the defendant real property,

arguing that Pickle agreed to pay attorney fees for an action instituted

on the note. However, Chinn Claimants’ do not provide authority

supporting their position that they are entitled to recover attorney

fees from the proceeds of the sale of the defendant real property;

therefore, the request for payment of attorney fees from the sale of the

defendant real property is DENIED.

Dated: October 20, 2011

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-01937-GEB-DB Document 50 Filed 10/21/11 Page 2 of 2