United States v. Contents of Bank of America , 452 F. App'x 881 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-12682 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 29, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 8:05-cv-01734-EAK-MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CONTENTS OF BANK OF AMERICA,
091000061081093; 091000061081064;
091000061081006; 091000060553632;
091000058101203; 091000058101229;
091000058101245; held in the name of
Charles D. Butler in Trust for Terry Lee Butler, et al.
Defendants,
TERRY L. BUTLER,
Claimant-Appellant,
CHARLES D. BUTLER, individually and
as president of Miracle Temple, Inc.,
Claimant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(December 29, 2011)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Terry L. Butler presents the following issues on appeal: first, that the district
court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion;
second, that the district court erred by denying his Rule 60(b) motion; and third, that
the district court erred by denying his motion for reconsideration. After a review of
the record, we affirm the orders of the district court.
Butler asserts that the district court should have granted his motion for an
evidentiary hearing on his Rule 60(b) motion. His Rule 60(b) motion sought to set
aside the court’s entry of judgment in a civil forfeiture action brought by the
Government. The court entered the judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement
negotiated between Butler and the Government. Butler maintains he was owed an
evidentiary hearing to evaluate his claim that he executed the settlement agreement
under duress because the Government threatened him with criminal prosecution if he
did not enter into the agreement.
2
Florida law controls. Florida law appears to hold that the threat of criminal
prosecution does not constitute duress and will not justify rescission of the settlement
agreement. See Smith v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 998 F. Supp. 1412, 1417-18 (S.D.
Fla. 1997) (“The law in the State of Florida is clear: a threat of criminal prosecution
does not constitute duress and will not justify rescission of a legal instrument, where
the threat to seek prosecution is legally justifiable. (citations omitted)); Franklin v.
Wallack, 576 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (affirming trial court’s
ruling that threatened criminal prosecution would not constitute duress because party
was legally justified in seeking prosecution). In support of his position that a threat
of prosecution justifies rescission of the agreement, Butler cites Sheldon v. Wilfore,
186 So. 508 (Fla. 1939), and Burton v. McMillan, 42 So. 849 (Fla. 1907). However,
a Florida court has interpreted the rescission that occurred in those cases as based
more on the contracting party’s weakened mental state than on threatened
prosecution. Franklin, 576 So. 2d at 1372. We conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in the denial of Butler’s motions.
AFFIRMED.
3