Opinion ID: 2981774
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The government argues we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the government sold the defendant properties, and retained control over the res is a prerequisite to our appellate jurisdiction. We disagree. This court reviews jurisdictional issues de novo. Mwasaru v. Napolitano, 619 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2010). This court has jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court had control of the defendant properties when the government initiated the forfeiture proceedings. The government’s subsequent sale of the properties did not divest the court of jurisdiction. The government seized the defendant properties and initiated civil forfeiture proceedings under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). “[I]t long has been understood that a valid seizure of the res is a prerequisite to the initiation of an in rem civil forfeiture proceeding.” Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 84 (1992) (citing United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984)). Forfeiture proceedings under § 881 are modeled after proceedings in admiralty. Id. Thus, “‘seizure of the RES, and the publication of the monition or invitation to appear, is regarded as equivalent to the particular service of process in the courts of law and equity.’” Id. at 84-85 (quoting Taylor v. Carryl, 61 U.S. (20 How.) 583, 599 (1858)). In Bank of Miami, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the government’s argument “that jurisdiction over an in rem forfeiture proceeding depends upon continued control of the res.” 506 U.S. at 84-89. In that case, the government initiated an action seeking forfeiture of a single-family residence in Florida. Id. at 82. “The complaint alleged that Indalecio Iglesias was the true owner of 6 the property; that he had purchased it with proceeds of narcotics trafficking; and that the property was subject to forfeiture to the United States” under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). Id. The trial court found probable cause to seize the property, and the government issued a notice of the forfeiture proceedings. Id. Republic National Bank of Miami filed a claim asserting it retained a lien interest of $800,000 in the property under a mortgage note. Bank of Miami, 506 U.S. at 83. The bank and the government entered into an agreement for sale of the property. Id. With court approval, the government sold the property for $1,050,000. Id. The United States Marshal retained the sale proceeds pending resolution of the case. Id. At trial, the court rejected the bank’s claim to the property. Id. At the government’s request, the Marshal transferred the sale proceeds to the Assets Forfeiture Fund of the United States Treasury. Id. The bank filed a timely appeal; the government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Id. The Eleventh Circuit granted the motion, holding that removal of the res destroyed the court’s jurisdiction. Id.; United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 6960 Miraflores Ave., 932 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1991), rev’d sub nom. Bank of Miami, 506 U.S. at 87. The Supreme Court reversed, stating that a jurisdictional rule requiring continued control of the res in an in rem proceeding “does not exist.” Bank of Miami, 506 U.S. at 87. Rather, as when jurisdiction otherwise exists, such as by diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, it “survives a change in circumstances.” Id. at 88. Thus, a party cannot avoid an appellate court’s jurisdiction under § 1332 by changing his domicile, and a damages award at or under $75,000 does not divest an appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Id. The Court therefore concluded that “[s]tasis is not a general prerequisite to the maintenance of jurisdiction[,]” and “in an in rem forfeiture action, 7 the Court of Appeals is not divested of jurisdiction by the prevailing party’s transfer of the res from the district.” Id. at 88-89. As in Bank of Miami, this court retains jurisdiction despite the fact the government has sold the property and deposited the proceeds in the forfeiture fund. The government initiated forfeiture proceedings against the defendant properties, and the trial court held that Butler lacked standing to contest the proceedings because he failed to answer the forfeiture complaint. The trial court thereafter entered a decree of forfeiture, and the government sold the defendant properties. The Marshal then released the sale proceeds to the forfeiture fund. This action did not divest this court of jurisdiction even though the res is no longer under the district court’s control.1