You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Nos. 91-3094, 91-3096

Citation: 947 F.2d 954Docket: 954

Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; October 27, 1991; Federal Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Citation of unpublished opinions is now permitted if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached or furnished to the court and all parties. This follows the General Order from November 29, 1993, which temporarily suspended 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995. In the case of United States of America v. Robert Rich and Steven Rich, the appellants challenge the district court’s summary judgment that favored the Government, which resulted in the forfeiture of real and personal property associated with controlled substance exchanges under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The Government's complaint targets six parcels of real property across three Kansas counties and a significant amount of personal property, including 103 racehorses, livestock, firearms, and vehicles. One property is owned by Robert Rich, while the others belong to Triple B Land and Cattle Co., Inc. The personal property is primarily owned by Robert Rich. The appeal was submitted without oral argument as the panel determined it would not materially assist in the case’s resolution.

Robert Rich and Steven Rich intervened in a legal complaint, asserting ownership of 15% and 40% of Triple B's issued stock, respectively, and claiming their innocence. The Government filed for summary judgment, presenting evidence that Robert Rich had multiple drug convictions, including a charge for a continuing criminal enterprise, and that the properties in question were used for illegal drug activities. Robert Rich had no legitimate income but owned personal property free and clear, while Steven Rich's stock was valued at less than $500.

In response to the summary judgment motion, the Riches denied certain facts and submitted affidavits claiming ignorance of any drug operations. They argued that Steven Rich's stock was worth more than $500. The district court found no material facts in dispute, ruled for forfeiture of the properties, and concluded Steven Rich had a nominal interest in Triple B that was not acquired legitimately.

Robert Rich claimed that the forfeiture was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, citing insufficient evidence in his criminal trial. However, the appeal record did not support his argument regarding a special verdict on forfeiture. The Riches also contended there were material fact disputes over the stock valuation, but the court determined they failed to provide evidence countering the Government's claims.

Lastly, the Riches argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that only the District of Louisiana had jurisdiction due to the location of criminal convictions. The court clarified that criminal and civil forfeitures are distinct; the Kansas court had in rem jurisdiction over the property once it was seized based on the complaint.

The district court's judgment was affirmed, noting that the order holds no precedential value except for establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel.