Haberman v. United States of America

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER... all relief sought by plaintiff by her motion for return of seized and forfeited property is hereby denied. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 3/20/2014) (krg)

u.s. DISTRICT COURT

I

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

I

FILED

!

r---··-···---··· ·---,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI T COU~
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TE AS
•
2 0 2014
FORT WORTH DIVISION
- ....
....,_-,....,,,

_____ .
·~--'

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT 0

LORI BETH HABERMAN,

By ___________

§
§

Plaintiff,

f)l'put~·

§
§

VS.

§
§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

§
§

Defendant.

NO. 4:13-CV-1018-A

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER
Before the court for consideration and decision is the
motion of defendant, United States of America, to dismiss or, in
the alternative, for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the
claims asserted by plaintiff, Lori Beth Haberman, against
defendant in the above-captioned action.

After having considered

such motion and its supporting brief and appendix, plaintiff's
objection thereto, the pleading by which the above-captioned
action was initiated, titled "Motion for Returned [sic] of Seized
and Forfeited Property," 1 filed December 23, 2013, the court has
concluded that the relief sought by defendant's motion should be
granted, and that all relief sought by plaintiff in her motion
for return of seized and forfeited property should be denied.

1

Plaintiffs motion initially was filed in a criminal case styled "United States of America v. Lori
Beth Haberman," bearing Case No. 4:07-CR-188-A. The court characterized the motion as a civil action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and caused it to be re-docketed as a civil action styled "Lori Beth Haberman,
Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant," bearing Case No. 4:13-CV-1018-A.

By final order regarding forfeiture issued August 7, 2008,
in Case No. 4:07-CR-188-A on the docket of this court, styled
"United States of America v. Lawrence Allan Haberman," to which
plaintiff, Lori Beth Haberman, was a party, the court ordered
forfeiture of a number of items, including the real property to
which plaintiff makes reference in her motion for return of
seized and forfeited property.

The August 7, 2008 final order

recognizes plaintiff's interest in such real property, and orders
that upon the sale of the property fifty percent of the net sales
proceeds be paid by the United States Marshals Service ("USMS"},
for plaintiff's benefit, to the clerk of court for the Northern
District of Texas to be applied on a criminal fine imposed on
plaintiff in Case No. 4:07-CR-188-A.
The affidavit of Tanya Miller, submitted to the court in the
appendix in support of defendant's brief, establishes that the
real property in question was sold as authorized by the August 7,
2008 order and that one-half of the net sales proceeds were paid
for application on plaintiff's fine obligation, as directed and
authorized by the August 7, 2008 order.

Therefore, the record

affirmatively establishes that the relief sought by plaintiff by
her motion for return of seized and forfeited property is without
merit.

2

For the reasons stated above, the court ORDERS that all
relief sought by plaintiff by her motion for return of seized and
forfeited property be, and is hereby, denied.
SIGNED March 20, 2014.

/.

t

3