United States of America v. 3338 Bat Cave Road, Old Fort, McDowell County, North Carolina
PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment and the Verified Claim and Amended Answer of the Lavenders are hereby DISMISSED and Partial Judgment of Forfeiture is hereby ENTERED in favor of the Uni ted States of America as to any and all claims of Margaret Gilliam Lavender and Donald C. Lavender in the subject property. FURTHER ORDERED no relief having been sought as to any other individuals or entities, none is given. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 05/25/2013. (thh) Modified text on 5/28/2013 (ejb). NEF Regenerated.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12cv223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
3338 BAT CAVE ROAD, OLD FORT,
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
as described in a Deed at Book 1067, page 662, )
McDowell County Registry, being said
real property, together with the residence,
and all appurtenances, improvements,
and attachments thereon,
_______________________________ __________ )
PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter
Summary Judgment and Dismiss Claims of Margaret Gilliam Lavender and
Donald C. Lavender [Doc. 18].
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
The Plaintiff initiated this action for civil in rem forfeiture on August 9,
2012. [Doc. 1]. In the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, it is alleged
that on November 29, 2011 agents of the North Carolina State Bureau of
Investigation (SBI) together with the McDowell County Drug Enforcement
methamphetamine from Calvin Lavender (Calvin) at his residence located
at 3338 Bat Cave Road, Old Fort, North Carolina. [Id. at 2]. On December
7, 2011, SBI agents together with McDowell made another controlled
purchase of 14.2 grams of methamphetamine from Calvin at the same
This scenario was repeated on five more occasions in
December 2011 with all controlled purchases being from Calvin at that
same location, his residence. [Id.].
On December 28, 2011, Calvin was arrested during a vehicular stop
conducted by North Carolina State Highway Patrolman Andy Waycaster.
[Id. at 3].
His arrest was based on outstanding North Carolina arrest
During that stop, the law enforcement officer obtained
methamphetamine was discovered inside. [Id.].
On that same date, a search warrant was executed at Calvin’s
residence. [Id. at 4]. Methamphetamine in the amount of 28.8 grams was
found inside Calvin’s bedroom. [Id.]. During an interview on that date,
Calvin admitted to agents that he used the money he made from selling
methamphetamine to improve his residence with such items as new
flooring, paint, roofing materials and an outbuilding. [Id.].
The residence at issue, 3338 Bat Cave Road, Old Fort, North
Carolina is titled in the names of Margaret and Donald Lavender (the
Lavenders), husband and wife, through a quitclaim deed from Calvin dated
March 28, 2012 and recorded at Book 1067, Page 662 of the McDowell
County Registry. [Id.]. The quitclaim deed, therefore, was transferred after
the above described events. It is undisputed that the Lavenders are the
biological parents of Calvin, that Calvin resided alone at the residence and
that the Lavenders have never resided there. [Id.].
In the Complaint, it is alleged that the real property is a thing of value
furnished in exchange for controlled substances and the proceeds of
controlled substances and has also been used to commit or facilitate the
commission of drug trafficking crimes.
[Id. at 5].
It is thus subject to
forfeiture to the United States. 21 U.S.C. §881; 18 U.S.C. §981(f). It is
also alleged in the Complaint that Calvin and the Lavenders are individuals
identified as having a possible claim to the property. [Id.].
The Government has not shown that it sent personal notice to Calvin
by certified mail, return receipt requested pursuant to Rule G(4)(b)(i) of the
Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture
Actions. The Government did provide notice by publication on the official
internet government forfeiture site, www.forfeiture.gov, for at least thirty
consecutive days pursuant to Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental
Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. [Doc.
6; Doc. 6-1].
On September 24, 2012, the Lavenders filed a Verified Claim and on
October 15, 2012, filed an Answer. [Doc. 5; Doc. 7]. They later amended
In responses to interrogatories, they made
admissions which show that their son transferred the property to them
without consideration because he was about to be incarcerated and that
they are not bona fide purchasers for value of the property. [Doc. 13; Doc.
16; Doc. 17].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment
shall be awarded “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, ... show there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As the Supreme Court has
observed, “this standard provides that the mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat
an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment;
the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514, 519 (4th
Cir. 2003), cert. denied 541 U.S. 1042, 124 S.Ct. 2171, 158 L.Ed.2d 732
(2004) (emphasis in original).
A genuine issue of fact exists if a reasonable jury considering the
evidence could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Shaw v. Stroud,
13 F.3d 791, 798 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 814, 115 S.Ct. 68,
130 L.Ed.2d 24 (1994) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). “Regardless of
whether he may ultimately be responsible for proof and persuasion, the
party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Bouchat, 346 F.3d at 522
(citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553,
91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). If this showing is made, the burden then shifts to
the non-moving party who must convince the Court that a triable issue does
A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment
“may not rest upon the mere allegations or denial of [his]
pleadings,” but rather must “set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Furthermore, neither
“[u]nsupported speculation,” nor evidence that is “merely
colorable” or “not significantly probative,” will suffice to defeat a
motion for summary judgment; rather, if the adverse party fails
to bring forth facts showing that “reasonable minds could differ”
on a material point, then, regardless of “[a]ny proof or
evidentiary requirements imposed by the substantive law,”
“summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered.”
Nonetheless, in considering the facts for the purposes of a summary
judgment motion, the Court will view the pleadings and material presented
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89
L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
The Government has moved for summary judgment against the
Lavenders.1 The Lavenders have not filed any response to the pending
motion and thus, have failed to carry their burden. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A
review of the responses to the interrogatories shows that any such
response would have been futile. The forecast of undisputed evidence and
admissions of the Lavenders establish that the Government is entitled to
Judgment as a matter of law as to any interest the Lavenders had in the
subject real property.
It has not moved for relief against Calvin.
PARTIAL JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
the Plaintiff’s Motion to Enter Summary Judgment and Dismiss Claims of
Margaret Gilliam Lavender and Donald C. Lavender [Doc. 18] is hereby
GRANTED and the Verified Claim and Amended Answer of the Lavenders
are hereby DISMISSED and Partial Judgment of Forfeiture is hereby
ENTERED in favor of the United States of America as to any and all claims
of Margaret Gilliam Lavender and Donald C. Lavender in the subject
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no relief having been sought as to
any other individuals or entities, none is given.
Signed: May 25, 2013