Court Opinion

ID: 2961461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:43:37.82058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:27.555530
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          August 7, 1992                                 ____________________          No. 92-1073              92-1237                              JESUS M. SANCHEZ, ET AL.,                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                    APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                        Selya, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                              ______________                                 ____________________               Antonio Cordova-Gonzalez for appellants.               ________________________               Jose F. Blanco, Assistant  United States Attorney, with whom               ______________          Daniel  F. Lopez  Romo,  United States  Attorney,  and Miguel  A.          ______________________                                 __________          Fernandez, Assistant  United States Attorney, were  on brief, for          _________          the United States.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                    Per  Curiam.    Following  the civil  forfeiture  of  a                    ___________          substantial  amount of cash that had been  buried on a small farm          in Puerto  Rico, 21 U.S.C.    881(a)(6),  the present  plaintiffs          instituted a separate civil action wherein they alleged that they          were entitled  to  some or  all  of the  money  as finders  of  a          "treasure trove."  The  district court dismissed the action.   We          affirm.                    It  is apodictic  that, if  a forfeiture  proceeding is          properly  instituted and  consummated,  the  resultant decree  is          "conclusive upon the whole world" and competing claims to the res                                                                        ___          cannot  thereafter  be  litigated  in  a  subsequent  proceeding.          Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246, 320 (1818).   Consistent          _______    ____          with this time-honored principle,  it is the general rule  that a          decree of forfeiture cannot ordinarily be subjected to collateral          attack in the  courts.1  We see no basis  for departing from this          settled rule in  the instant case.  The proper  place to litigate          the  legality and validity  of the forfeiture,  and all competing          claims to  the property seized,  is in the  forfeiture proceeding          itself.  United States v. Hernandez,  911 F.2d 981, 983 (5th Cir.                   _____________    _________          1990).                    Affirmed.  Double costs in favor of appellee.                    ____________________________________________                                        ____________________               1A final decree of forfeiture can, of course, be ameliorated          administratively by  remission or mitigation.   See  19 U.S.C.                                                             ___          1618;  see also United States v. One Clipper Bow Ketch NISKU, 548                 ___ ____ _____________    ___________________________          F.2d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1977).                                          2