United States of America v. 3503 Rolling Hills Drive Blanchard, Oklahoma 73010
ORDER granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 1/10/17. (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3503 ROLLING HILLS DRIVE,
BLANCHARD, OKLAHOMA 73013,
Case No. CIV-15-494-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of the Rolling Hills property asserting it is proceeds traceable
to illegal drug exchanges. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting the
undisputed facts demonstrate it is entitled to judgment. Although the time to respond has
passed, no response has been filed on behalf of Defendant. The Court previously granted a
continuance of the deadlines in this matter to permit the parties to attempt settlement of the
matter. However, the deadlines set forth in that continuance have long since passed with no
response by Defendant.
In May of 2013, the property was purchased by Anthony Cox and his wife, using
funds provided by Mr. Cox. On May 27, 2014, Mr. Cox was indicted on charges of
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and two counts of conspiracy to launder money.
The conspiracy charge alleged a start date of March 3, 2013, and an end date of May 24,
2014. Mrs. Romero-Cox, Anthony Cox’s wife, was also charged with a felony. On January
28, 2015, Mr. Cox pleaded guilty to a two-count superceding information which charged him
with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine from March 3, 2013, continuously through
July 10, 2014, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On June 26, 2014, Mrs. Romero-Cox executed
a quit claim deed conveying the Rolling Hills property to Diana Herrera-Jaramillo. No
payment was made in exchange for the quit claim deed. Ms. Herrera-Jaramillo is Mr. Cox’s
mother. Mrs. Romero-Cox has waived any claim or interest in the Rolling Hills property and
agreed to not assist any other person in pursuing a claim. The criminal charges against Mrs.
Romero-Cox were dismissed on February 5, 2015.
As noted above, Plaintiff seeks forfeiture of the property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881,
asserting it was obtained using proceeds traceable to Mr. Cox’s criminal actions. When this
matter was filed, Diana Herrera-Jaramillo filed a verified claim asserting she was the sole
owner of the property. After reviewing the evidence submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds
the evidence establishes the property is subject to forfeiture as there is a clear nexus between
the property and the criminal offense. The burden now shifts to Ms. Herrera-Jaramillo to
establish that she is an innocent owner. See 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(1). As noted above, Ms.
Herrera-Jaramillo has not responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment. In any event,
Plaintiff has provided well-supported facts demonstrating that Ms. Herrera-Jaramillo is not
an “owner” under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d)(6), as she received the property through a fraudulent
conveyance. Further, as demonstrated by Plaintiff in the Motion, even if Ms. HerreraJaramillo could establish valid ownership, she cannot establish herself as an “innocent
owner” as required to prevent the forfeiture.
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No.
27) is GRANTED. The property is subject to forfeiture and claimant is not an innocent
owner. Therefore, Ms. Herrera-Jaramillo’s claim to the property is dismissed. A separate
Judgment shall issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of January, 2017.
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?