Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03096/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A Tract or Parcel
Not Party
Steven Rich
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

,. \ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

ROBERT RICH, and STEVEN RICH, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants, ) 

) 

A TRACT OF PARCEL, OF LAND KNOWN AS THE) 

SE/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE ) 

1 7, LOCATED IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ) 

KANSAS, AS WELL AS A TWO-STORY SINGLE ) 

FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON SAID ) 

PROPERTY; A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND ) 

KNOWN AS THE NE/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWN- ) 

SHIP 33, RANGE 17, LOCATED IN LABETTE ) 

COUNTY, KANSAS; A TRACT OR PARCEL OF ) 

LAND KNOWN AS THE S/2 OF LOT 2 AND ALL ) 

OF LOTS 3 AND 4, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP ) 

31, RANGE 17, LOCATED IN MONTGOMERY ) 

COUNTY, KANSAS; A TRACT OR PARCEL OF ) 

LAND KNOWN AS THE S/2 OF THE NW/4 AND ) 

THE N/2 OF THE SW/4 OF SECTION 6, TOWN-) 

SHIP 31, RANGE 18, AND THE SE/4 OF SEC-) 

TION 1, TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 17, ALL ) 

LOCATED IN LABETTE COUNTY, KANSAS; A ) 

TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND KNOWN AS THE N/2) 

OF LOT 6 AND BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST) 

CORNER OF LOT 5, THENCE NORTH 527 FEET, ) 

THENCE EASTERLY TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT) 

5 TO A POINT 380 FEET NORTH OF THE ) 

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, THENCE SOUTH) 

380 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID) 

LOT, THENCE WEST 812 FEET TO THE POINT ) 

OF BEGINNING LOCATED IN SECTION 17, ) 

TOWNSHIP 31, RANGE 17, IN MONTGOMERY ) 

COUNTY, KANSAS; A TRACT OR PARCEL OF ) 

LAND KNOWN AS THE NE/4 OF SECTION 20, ) 

TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 22 EAST, ) 

LOCATED IN CHEROKEE COUNTY, KANSAS; ) 

TOGETHER WITH ALL IMPROVEMENTS, APPUR- ) 

TENANCES, BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, FIX- ) 

TURES, FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT, MERCHAN-) 

OISE, COMMODITIES, LIVESTOCK, CASH ON ) 

HAND, JEWELRY AND OTHER ITEMS, LOCATED ) 

OCT 2 81991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

Nos. 91-3094 & 

91-3096 

(D. C. No. 89-CV-1133) 

(D. Kan.) 

Appellate Case: 91-3096 Document: 010110092932 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 1 
\ 

ON EACH OF THE ABOVE PARCELS OF REAL ) 

PROPERTY; ANY AND ALL MOTOR VEHICLES ) 

FOUND REGISTERED TO ROBERT RICH, RAFTER) 

4 RANCH OR TRIPLE BLAND AND CATTLE ) 

COMPANY ON SAID PROPERTY, INCLUDING BUT) 

NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: ONE 1987 ) 

BLACK CHEVROLET CORVETTE, VIN# UNKNOWN;) 

ONE 1985 FORD THUNDERBIRD, VIN# ) 

1FABP463FH 203330; ONE 1987 CHEVROLET ) 

PICKUP, VIN# 1GCHR34N9HS147519; ONE ) 

1985 FORD EL CAMINO, VIN# UNKNOWN; ONE) 

1986 CHEVROLET PICKUP, VIN# 1GCDC14H3GS) 

181950; ONE 1983 CHEVROLET 3/4 TON PICK-) 

UP, VIN# UNKNOWN; ONE 1983 CHEVROLET ) 

ONE TON TRUCK, VIN# UNKNOWN; ONE 1983 ) 

LINCOLN CONTINENTAL, VIN# 1MRBP98F9DY ) 

634350; U.S. COIN AND CURRENCY AND ) 

MISCELLANEOUS HOUSEHOLD AND PERSONAL ) 

PROPERTY FOUND ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ) 

PARCELS OF LAND; EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED ) 

WITH THE USE, TRANSPORTATION AND CARE OF) 

LIVESTOCK, FOUND ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED) 

PARCELS OF LAND; FARM EQUIPMENT, IN- ) 

CLUDING THE ITEMS LISTED IN SCHEDULE C ) 

OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THIS COM-) 

PLAINT, FOUND ON THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ) 

PARCELS OF LAND; LIVESTOCK, INCLUDING ) 

CATTLE AND HORSES LISTED IN SCHEDULES E) 

& F AND ANY DOCUMENTS WHICH REFLECT THE) 

REGISTRATION OF SAID ANIMALS, FOUND ON ) 

THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCELS OF LAND, ) 

) 

Respondent in rem. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3096 Document: 010110092932 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 2 
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Robert and Steven Rich appeal, prose, the district court's 

grant of summary judgment to the Government. This judgment 

forfeited real and personal property traceable to an exchange for 

controlled substances pursuant to 21 u.s.c. § 881(a)(6). 

The Government filed a complaint seeking to forfeit six 

parcels of real property situated in three Kansas counties and a 

large amount of personalty including by way of illustration 103 

racehorses, livestock, numerous firearms, and vehicles. One of 

the parcels of real property was owned by Robert Rich and the 

remaining realty was owned by Triple B Land and Cattle Co., Inc., 

a Kansas corporation. The personalty was largely owned by Robert 

Rich. 

Robert Rich and Steven Rich intervened and responded to the 

complaint asserting that Robert Rich owned 15% of the issued stock 

of Triple Band Steven Rich owned 40%. Both asserted they were 

innocent parties and asked their interest be protected. 

Following discovery, the Government filed a motion for 

summary judgment supported by a large quantity of evidentiary 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3096 Document: 010110092932 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 3 
material. The essence of the Government's evidence showed that 

Robert Rich had been convicted of fifteen drug charges in federal 

court in Louisiana, one of these counts being a continuing 

criminal enterprise; that the lands had been used to manufacture 

and distribute illegal drugs; that Robert Rich had no legitimate 

income but owned all of the personalty free and clear; and that 

Steven Rich's corporate stock was worth less than $500. 

Robert and Steven Rich responded to the motion for summary 

judgment (1) by having their attorney deny certain facts as if it 

were an answer; and (2) by filing affidavits that stated they had 

"no information or knowledge of any illicit drug operation." 

Steven Rich asserted he had earned his corporate stock by working 

for Robert Rich and for Triple Band that he was "unsure if [his 

corporate stock in Triple B] was worth anything." 

The district court decided there were no material facts at 

issue and concluded the facts established the properties should be 

forfeited and that Steven Rich had only a nominal interest in 

Triple B which was not shown to have been acquired innocently and 

for value. 

Robert Rich first contends this forfeiture suit was barred by 

res judicata and collateral estoppel. He argues that during his 

criminal trial in the District of Louisiana, the Government failed 

to produce sufficient evidence and "the jury did not find against 

Robert Rich on the issue." There exists a fatal flaw to this 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3096 Document: 010110092932 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 4 
argument, and that is Mr. Rich's argument is not supported by the 

record on appeal. The record reflects only his convictions and 

fails to show any special verdict concerning forfeiture. We 

therefore need not address this question. 

The Riches next contend there existed controverted issues of 

material fact. They contend the "facts" support a valuation of 

Steven Rich's corporate stock in excess of $500, and they claim 

the Government failed to prove certain critical facts as it used 

only uncorroborated materials. These arguments must fail. First, 

the Government's evidence shows Steven Rich's corporate stock was 

worth less than $500 and Steven Rich's response as contained in 

his affidavit was that he was unsure of its value. Second, the 

Riches misperceive the workings of a summary judgment. Once the 

Government moved for summary judgment and supported it with 

evidence, it became the obligation of the Riches to come forward 

with evidence, not simply denials, to show contrary evidence 

existed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson v. Libberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986). This they failed 

to do. 

Finally, the Riches contend the district court lacked subject 

matter jurisdiction, arguing that the District of Louisiana has 

exclusive jurisdiction because this was the situs of the criminal 

convictions. They further argue the district court failed to seek 

and obtain leave from the Louisiana district court to proceed 

-5-

Appellate Case: 91-3096 Document: 010110092932 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 5 
against the Kansas property. Again, the Riches misperceive the 

law. Criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture are separate and 

distinct. The court located in the District of Louisiana had no 

jurisdiction over the property located in Louisiana. The remedies 

are not mutually exclusive. Once the Kansas court seized the 

property based upon the complaint, it obtained in rem jurisdiction 

over the property and was entitled to proceed against the 

property. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 91-3096 Document: 010110092932 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 6