The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

___________

No. 95-2723

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

One Square Acre of Land * Appeal from the United States

Located in Washington County, * District Court for the

Arkansas, With All Appurtenances* Western District of Arkansas

and Improvements Thereon, *

* {UNPUBLISHED}

Defendant, *

*

Tom Brown, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 27, 1996

 Filed: June 11, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas F. Brown appeals from a final judgment of the District Court1

for the Western District of Arkansas dismissing the United States' civil

forfeiture action based on its conclusion that any forfeiture could be

pursued in the previous criminal forfeiture proceeding. For the reasons

discussed below, we affirm.
-2-

Brown was the owner of forty acres of land. In February 1994, Brown

conveyed by quitclaim deed a one-acre parcel to "Our Church." After law

enforcement officials seized marijuana and peyote growing on the property

in August 1994, Brown was charged with, and a jury subsequently convicted

him of, manufacturing marijuana and peyote. The jury also found Brown had

used his entire forty-acre tract to facilitate the manufacturing process,

thus subjecting the property to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853. This

court affirmed. United States v. Brown, 72 F.3d 134 (8th Cir. 1995)

(Table), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1581 (1996). The final order of

forfeiture excepted from the legal description the one acre purportedly

deeded to Our Church, the record title owner. 

The government then instituted the instant civil forfeiture

proceeding under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) to recover the single acre deeded

to Our Church. Brown answered the complaint, and the government moved for

summary judgment. The district court dismissed the civil forfeiture

action, concluding that the conveyance to Our Church was invalid under

Arkansas law; that Brown had retained legal title to the remaining acre;

that the jury's finding with respect to the criminal forfeiture count of

the indictment applied to Brown's interest in the one acre; and that the

United States thus could pursue forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853 in the

criminal proceeding. 

Brown appeals, arguing the district court erred in "invalidating" the

transfer of title to Our Church without first considering the Religious

Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), because testimony at the criminal

trial proved the deed to the church was accepted by a duly elected county

official, and because the district court had previously found the transfer

valid. Brown also argues the forfeiture constituted an act of double

jeopardy and an excessive fine.

 Brown's arguments for reversal are without merit. First, the
-3-

district court did not need to consider the RFRA or double jeopardy claims

because the court dismissed the civil action. Second, under Arkansas law,

an unincorporated association cannot acquire and hold property in its own

name. Fausett & Co. v. Bogard, 685 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Ark. 1985); Lael v.

Crook, 97 S.W.2d 436, 439 (Ark. 1936) (conveyance to an unincorporated

association is invalid and does not pass legal title). We thus agree with

the district court that Brown had retained title to the single acre, no

title impediments existed to forfeiture under section 853, and the

government could proceed through criminal forfeiture proceedings. We note

that Brown could raise any claims of double jeopardy and excessive fines

in such a proceeding.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.