Opinion ID: 6498741
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Interlocutory Home Sale

Text: The second issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in granting the government’s motion for interlocutory sale of real property located at Burning Hollow Road. We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Approximately 81,454 Cans of Baby Formula, 560 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2009). Resting a district court decision on an erroneous conclusion of law or failing to explain its decision are grounds for finding an abuse of discretion, even under this deferential standard. See In re Stericycle Sec. Litig., 35 F.4th 555, 559 (7th Cir. 2022) (in the fee award context); Ahmed v. Garland, 854 Fed. App’x 753, 755 (7th Cir. 2021) (in the immigration context); United States v. Turner, 594 F.3d 946, 955 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting that because a district court “order was … premised on a mistake regarding the applicable legal standards,” there was “necessarily an abuse of discretion”). Here, claimants agreed to this interlocutory sale. As discussed above, the dismissal of the § 853(n) petition is a final order, and the claimants’ appeal of that order brings up this stipulated interlocutory-sale order along with it. “Motions for interlocutory sales in criminal forfeiture proceedings are governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(7), which in turn directs courts to act ‘in accordance No. 20-1526 19 with Supplemental Rule G(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’” United States v. Hall, 877 F.3d 676, 685 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(7)). Per the advisory committee notes, “[t]he court must carefully weigh the competing interests in each case” when deciding whether to order the interlocutory sale of property. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Supp. G(7) advisory committee’s note. The directive to carefully weigh is a general one affording “considerable discretion” to the district court; seeing as Rule G(7) “does not state any criteria to guide the judge[,] … the judge can range widely in deciding what factors to consider, and what weight to give them, in making his ruling.” Approximately 81,454 Cans of Baby Formula, 560 F.3d at 641. In granting the government’s motion for interlocutory sale of property, the district court “careful[ly] review[ed] … the requests advanced by the government in each of these referenced motions along with the response and reply briefs” and explicitly “adopt[ed] and incorporate[d]” the government’s position by reference. The government’s appellate brief advocated for affirmance on the grounds that claimants lacked the necessary legal interest to bring a petition in the ancillary proceeding, and, as a result, “Christine Furando and the other claimants cannot reasonably challenge the sale order in this case.” But, this was not the argument adopted and incorporated by the district court. At the trial level, the government argued: A court-ordered interlocutory sale of the real Property, pursuant to the provisions cited above and agreed to in this motion, is necessary and justified because the Property is subject to deterioration and non-payment of real estate 20 No. 20-1526 taxes. The Marshals Service also has notified the undersigned that maintaining the Property has become burdensome. These factors demon- strate the need for an interlocutory sale to pre- serve the remaining value of the property pend- ing a determination of the Government’s forfei- ture. These arguments are responsive to Supplemental Rule G(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. What is more, despite contesting the procedures at play, Christine Furando agreed to the government’s suggestion to sell the property. Because the district court’s adopted position was not explicitly predicated on the outcome of the § 853(n) proceedings, we need not reach the import of our remand on the § 853(n) issue discussed above. The record indicates the district court undertook the relevant analysis and sufficiently explained its decision, at least by incorporation. We review the decision from a deferential posture. Thus, we affirm the district court’s grant of the government’s motion for interlocutory sale of real property.