Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03552/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03552-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brenda Cochenour
Appellant
Jerry Cochenour
Appellant
Reba E. Cochenour
Not Party
Jodie Holt
Not Party
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3552

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff/Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Jerry Cochenour, *

* Appeal from the United States

Defendant/Appellant, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Brenda Cochenour, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Claimant/Appellant, *

*

Reba E. Cochenour; Jodie Holt, *

*

Claimants. *

__________

Submitted: March 16, 2006

Filed: March 22, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,1

 District

Judge. 

___________

Appellate Case: 05-3552 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023665
2

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

3

We review a third-party claim to forfeited property by examining the district

court’s findings of fact for clear error and its interpretation and application of law de

novo. United States v. Totaro, 345 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States

v. O’Dell, 247 F.3d 655, 679 (6th Cir. 2001)).

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Brenda Cochenour appeals the district court’s2

 final forfeiture order of her

husband Jerry Cochenour’s seized property. Jerry Cochenour pled guilty to drugrelated offenses and stipulated to the forfeitability of the seized property. The district

court rejected Brenda Cochenour’s claim to the forfeited property under 21 U.S.C.

§ 853(n). We affirm.3

Brenda Cochenour argues the district court erred in finding she had no legal

interest in the forfeited property because, under Missouri domestic relations law,

although the forfeited property was held solely in Jerry Cochenour’s name, it was

marital property in which both Jerry and Brenda possess an interest as tenants by the

entirety. We disagree. The Missouri statute relied upon by Brenda Cochenour

specifically limits its applicability to dissolution of marriage. See Mo. Rev. Stat.

§ 452.330.2 (defining “marital property” “[f]or purposes of sections 452.300 to

452.415 only”); id. §§ 452.300-.415 (Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). Divorce

law does not govern a spouse’s claimed interest in forfeited property. See United

States v.Totaro, 345 F.3d 989, 997-98 (8th Cir. 2003) (summarizing cases). In Totaro,

we distinguished cases in which courts held state divorce law could not form the basis

for a spouse’s claim to forfeited property. Id. We explained those cases did not apply

in Totaro because under state law the spouse, Adrienne Totaro, held sole ownership

of the forfeited property. Id. at 998. Here, that is not the case. Brenda Cochenour

does not have sole ownership of the forfeited property; Jerry Cochenour does. Brenda

Cochenour lacks the requisite ownership interest under Missouri law for her and Jerry

Appellate Case: 05-3552 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023665
-3-

Cochenour to hold a tenancy by the entirety in the forfeited property. See U.S. Fid.

& Guar. Co. v. Hiles, 670 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984) (listing elements

required to create a tenancy by the entirety, in which the property “is deemed to be

owned by a single entity, the marital community”).

Brenda Cochenour’s other claim, that the forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine

in violation of the Eighth Amendment, also fails because she lacks a legal interest in

the forfeited property and therefore lacks standing to challenge the forfeiture. Jerry

Cochenour’s claim, that the government has failed to return seized but non-forfeited

property, is not properly before us, because the district court had not yet issued a final

decision on Jerry Cochenour’s motion to release property at the time the appeal was

filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Accordingly, the district court’s forfeiture order is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3552 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2006 Entry ID: 2023665