United States of America v. Approximately $8,651 in Funds

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 11/17/2017. (thh)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00145-MR-DLH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
APPROXIMATELY $8,651 IN FUNDS )
SEIZED INCIDENT TO THE ARREST )
OF CHRISTOPHER MARK ERWIN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Government’s Motion for
Default Judgment [Doc. 8].
On June 9, 2017, the Government initiated this civil forfeiture action
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881 against the
defendant property.

[Doc. 1].

As grounds for forfeiture, the Verified

Complaint alleges in part that the defendant property was “seized incident to
the arrest of Christopher Mark Erwin and constitutes “proceeds of and/or was
used to facilitate drug trafficking crimes.” [Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6].
The Government posted notice of this civil forfeiture action for a period
of 30 consecutive days, beginning on June 2, 2017, as required by Rule
G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims

and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

[Doc. 5].

Additionally, the Government

provided direct notice to “Mr. Mark Erwin, c/o Stanley D. Young, Esq., 68
North Market Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.” [See Doc. 6]. On July
13, 2017, Mark Edward Erwin filed a Notice, withdrawing his interest in the
defendant property and expressly abandoning any claim or interest he had
in such property. [Doc. 4]. On September 19, 2017, the Government filed
the present motion for a default judgment against all persons and entities.
[Doc. 8].
Rule G(4)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime
Claims and Asset Forfeiture requires that the Government “send notice of
the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably
appears to be a potential claimant ….” Here, the Government alleges that
the defendant property was seized from, and incident to the arrest of, one
Christopher Mark Erwin. [Doc. 1 at ¶ 7]. The Government did not, however,
provide any direct notice to Christopher Mark Erwin, as required by Rule
G(4)(b)(i). Rather, it provided direct notice only to “Mr. Mark Erwin, c/o
Stanley D. Young.”

It is unclear from the record what Mark Erwin’s

relationship to this matter is. In any event, however, the Government failed
to provide direct notice to a potential claimant, that being the person from

2

whom the defendant property was directly seized.

Accordingly, the

Government’s motion for default judgment is denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for
Default Judgment [Doc. 8] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: November 17, 2017

3