Opinion ID: 712236
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Congressional Intent to Protect Marital Interests

Text: 28 Ms. May's argument from congressional intent is based on the legislative history of the 1984 amendment to § 881(a)(6) that established the innocent owner defense. See Joint Explanatory Statement of Titles II and III, Pub.L. No. 95-633, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 9518, 9522 (stating that [t]he term 'owner' should be broadly interpreted to include any person with a recognizable legal or equitable interest in the property seized). However, this appeal to legislative history incorrectly presupposes that Congress, not the state, defines which legal or equitable interests are recognizable. On the contrary, federal courts must look to state law in determining what property interests a claimant may assert. United States v. 1980 Lear Jet, 38 F.3d 398, 402 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. 1977 Porsche Carrera 911, 946 F.2d 30, 34 (5th Cir.1991). However broadly ownership may be construed in light of § 881's legislative history, it does not encompass interests that state law recognizes neither at law nor in equity. 4 29