United States of America v. 2012 Range Rover

Filing 11

DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of USA against 2012 Range Rover Sport, VIN #: SALSH2E42CA750161. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 4/15/13. (ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12cv385

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
2012 RANGE ROVER SPORT,
)
VIN: SALSH2E42CA750161,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ _)

DEFAULT JUDGMENT
OF FORFEITURE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment, Entry of Judgment, and Final Order of Forfeiture [Doc. 10].
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
The Plaintiff initiated this action for civil in rem forfeiture on December
12, 2012. [Doc. 1]. In the Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, it is
alleged that on June 23, 2012, Barry Landreth (Barry) presented a check to
Jaguar Land Rover Asheville in the amount of $77,625.27 for the purchase
of the 2012 Range Rover Sport, VIN #SALSH2E42CA750161 which is the
subject of this action. [Doc. 1 at 6-7]. In order to prove that the check was
valid, Barry showed the dealership a deposit slip showing that $78,000.00
1

had been deposited into the checking account on June 23, 2012. [Id.]. The
check which had been deposited was not covered by sufficient funds. [Id.].
Barry had the dealership title the Range Rover in the name of Tiffany
Amy Tyler (Tyler) who paid no consideration for the vehicle. [Id. at 7]. On
June 27, 2012, Jaguar Land Rover Asheville was informed that there were
insufficient funds in Barry’s checking account to cover the check delivered
for the purchase of the vehicle. [Id.]. On June 29, 2012, after having taken
possession of the vehicle, Barry had his father, Billy Landreth (Billy),
presented an official bank check in the amount of $78,300.00 to a different
bank, received cash in exchange and then deposited the cash into Barry’s
account.1

[Id. at 7-8].

Three days later, Jaguar Land Rover Asheville

deposited Barry’s check into its account. [Id.].
In the Complaint, it is alleged that the vehicle is the proceeds of bank
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1344.2

[Id. at 2].

Property which

constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to bank fraud is subject to
forfeiture to the United States. 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C). It is also alleged
in the Complaint that Tyler, Barry and Billy are individuals identified as

1

Billy borrowed this money from a friend. [Id.].
It is also alleged that the vehicle is the proceeds of money laundering but the
allegations of the Complaint and the Affidavit attached thereto do not clearly explain in
what manner money laundering occurred.
2

2

having a possible claim to the property. [Id. at 2-3].
On December 17, 2012, the Government sent personal notice 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 to Barry in the care of his attorney. The notice, which included a
copy of the Complaint, contained the information that the vehicle had been
seized, notified Barry of this forfeiture action and provided notice of his right
to submit a verified claim. [Doc. 8-1]. The notice was received. [Id.].
The Government also attempted to send notice by certified mail,
return receipt requested to Billy. [Doc. 8-2]. That notice was returned with
the notation that the Post Office was unable to deliver and no forwarding
address was known. [Id.]. On January 7, 2013, the notice was sent by
certified mail, return receipt requested to Billy at a different address and
this time the notice was received and signed for by Billy. [Doc. 8-3].
Although the Government has not provided proof of service of the
notice on Tyler, she filed a Claim in this action on January 21, 2013. [Doc.
5].
In addition to mailing notices, the Government also provided notice by
publication

on

the

official

internet

3

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 February 14, 2013, Tyler filed a Withdrawal of Claim and
relinquished and waived any right to contest the forfeiture. [Doc. 7]. Tyler’s
claim was therefore withdrawn and no claim remained pending in the action
on her part.
No person or entity has filed a claim or answer in this action. On
February 28, 2013, the Government moved for entry of the default. [Doc.
8]. On March 4, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered default. [Doc. 9]. On
March 5, 2013, the Government moved for a default judgment of forfeiture.
[Doc. 10].
DISCUSSION
The Government has shown that the 2012 Range Rover Sport is the
proceeds of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1344. [Id. at 2]. Property
which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to bank fraud is
subject to forfeiture to the United States. 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(C).
In addition to the personal notices, the Government provided
publication of notice on the official internet government forfeiture site,

4

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. Whiting v. United States, 231 F.3d 70, 76 (1st
Cir. 2000) (“Due process requires the government to afford an owner
‘notice and an opportunity to be heard’ before civilly forfeiting his property,
but actual receipt of notice by the defendant is not automatically required.
Rather, ... due process requires the provision of ‘notice reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.’”) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
The Court finds that the allegations of the complaint and the
supplemental filings establish that the vehicle at issue was the proceeds of
bank fraud. The Court also finds that the Government has established that
no potential claimant has timely filed a claim or otherwise answered and
default judgment is therefore appropriate.

5

JUDGMENT
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, Entry of Judgment, and Final
Order of Forfeiture [Doc. 10] is hereby GRANTED and Default Judgment
against

the

Defendant

2012

Range

Rover

Sport,

VIN

#SALSH2E42CA750161 is hereby ENTERED in favor of the United States
of America.
Signed: April 15, 2013

6