United States of America v. Real Property
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge William M Acker, Jr on 2/20/2014. (AVC)
2014 Feb-20 PM 02:56
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS
420 STERLING PARK CIRCLE,
ALABASTER, SHELBY COUNTY,
ALABAMA, AND ALL FIXTURES
AND APPURTENANCES THEREON,
On February 5, 2014, the United States of America, plaintiff
in the above styled forfeiture action, filed a motion to vacate the
interlocutory order for the sale of the defendant property entered
by the court on May 1, 2014, and seeking a dismissal of the
forfeiture action without prejudice.
The only claimant to an
interest in the subject real property to respond to the motion is
Iberiabank, which on February 11, 2014 did not object to the United
States’ motion, but requested (considered as a motion) that all
prior orders be vacated and not just the order for sale.
Because the court had jurisdiction over the collateral title
dispute between claimants Fleming Brooks and Iberiabank and has
adjudicated that dispute in favor of Brooks, it will not vacate or
set aside its holding that Brooks’s mortgage lien is superior to
Iberiabank’s judgment lien.
Furthermore, the record reflects that
Iberiabank attempted to present the same issue to the Supreme Court
of Alabama in its case No. 1120942, in which the Circuit Court of
Shelby County, Alabama was affirmed and Iberiabank was denied any
relief by a one line affirmance on September 13, 2013.
Accordingly, the motion of the United States will be granted
by separate order.
The words “without prejudice” will mean, inter
alia, that the order respecting the property rights of Iberiabank
and Brooks remain in effect.
DONE this 20th day of February, 2014.
WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?