Court Opinion

ID: 2963634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:17.972411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:36.807864
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        September 28, 1995      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APEPALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1069

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                           CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
                           300 FERN STREET BANGOR, ET AL.,
                                Defendants, Appellees,

                                   ________________

                                    SUSAN E. BURKE
                                 Claimant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge.
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________
         
                                 ____________________

             Susan E. Burke on brief pro se.
             ______________
             Jay P. McCloskey, United States Attorney, and Michael M.  DuBose,
             ________________                              __________________
        Assistant United  States Attorney, on Motion for Summary Dismissal for
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Appellant appeals from  the denial of
                      __________

            her Rule 60(b)(4)  motion.   She contends  that a  forfeiture

            decree  is void because she did not receive sufficient notice

            of the  forfeiture proceedings to  satisfy due process.   For

            the reasons  which follow, we conclude that  appellant is not

            entitled to relief.

                      The   district   court   afforded    appellant   an

            opportunity  to  prove that  she  had suffered  damages  as a

            result of the due process violation, but  appellant failed to

            appear at  the hearing, and  damages were denied.   Appellant

            has  not  challenged the  denial  of damages  on  appeal, but

            rather seeks  a determination that the  forfeiture decree was

            void because of the due process violation.  She contends that

            the purchaser  from the  government  could acquire  no  valid

            title  under a void judgment, and her intent is apparently to

            proceed  against the  purchaser if  the forfeiture  decree is

            declared void.

                      We will assume without deciding that  appellant had

            some possessory interest in  the res entitling her to  notice

            of the forfeiture proceedings and that the government  failed

            to accord her sufficient notice, thereby violating her  right

            to  due process.   Nevertheless,  because appellant,  despite

            ample  opportunity, has  failed adequately  to describe  what

            property interest she claims to have had, she is not entitled

            to Rule 60(b)(4) relief.

                      The record  owner, as well  as appellant's husband,

            John Burke, were served in  the forfeiture action, and  their

            rights in  the property  have been effectively  extinguished.

            So far as we are aware, they have not collaterally challenged

            the forfeiture decree as void.  In other words, the decree is

            valid as  to their interests.   To prevail then  in her quest

            against  the  purchaser,  appellant  would  need  to  show  a

            property  interest that  could survive the  extinguishment of

            the record owner's  and John Burke's.   She has failed  to do

            this, and consequently we  conclude that appellant has failed

            to establish  that  she  is entitled  to  relief  under  Rule

            60(b)(4).

                      Affirmed.
                      ________

                                         -3-