United States v. Tom Brown ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                     ___________
    No. 95-2723
    ___________
    United States of America,               *
    *
    Appellee,                 *
    *
    v.                                 *
    *
    One Square Acre of Land                 * Appeal from the United States
    Located in Washington County,           * District Court for the
    Arkansas, With All Appurtenances*       Western District of Arkansas
    and Improvements Thereon,               *
    * {UNPUBLISHED}
    Defendant,                *
    *
    Tom Brown, *
    *
    Appellant.                *
    ___________
    Submitted:     March 27, 1996
    Filed:   June 11, 1996
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Thomas F. Brown appeals from a final judgment of the District Court1
    for the Western District of Arkansas dismissing the United States' civil
    forfeiture action based on its conclusion that any forfeiture could be
    pursued in the previous criminal forfeiture proceeding.     For the reasons
    discussed below, we affirm.
    1
    The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States
    District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
    Brown was the owner of forty acres of land.       In February 1994, Brown
    conveyed by quitclaim deed a one-acre parcel to "Our Church."          After law
    enforcement officials seized marijuana and peyote growing on the property
    in August 1994, Brown was charged with, and a jury subsequently convicted
    him of, manufacturing marijuana and peyote.     The jury also found Brown had
    used his entire forty-acre tract to facilitate the manufacturing process,
    thus subjecting the property to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853.            This
    court affirmed.     United States v. Brown, 
    72 F.3d 134
    (8th Cir. 1995)
    (Table), cert. denied, 
    116 S. Ct. 1581
    (1996).            The final order of
    forfeiture excepted from the legal description the one acre purportedly
    deeded to Our Church, the record title owner.
    The     government   then   instituted   the   instant   civil   forfeiture
    proceeding under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) to recover the single acre deeded
    to Our Church.   Brown answered the complaint, and the government moved for
    summary judgment.      The district court dismissed the civil forfeiture
    action, concluding that the conveyance to Our Church was invalid under
    Arkansas law; that Brown had retained legal title to the remaining acre;
    that the jury's finding with respect to the criminal forfeiture count of
    the indictment applied to Brown's interest in the one acre; and that the
    United States thus could pursue forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 853 in the
    criminal proceeding.
    Brown appeals, arguing the district court erred in "invalidating" the
    transfer of title to Our Church without first considering the Religious
    Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), because testimony at the criminal
    trial proved the deed to the church was accepted by a duly elected county
    official, and because the district court had previously found the transfer
    valid.     Brown also argues the forfeiture constituted an act of double
    jeopardy and an excessive fine.
    Brown's arguments for reversal are without merit.      First, the
    -2-
    district court did not need to consider the RFRA or double jeopardy claims
    because the court dismissed the civil action.       Second, under Arkansas law,
    an unincorporated association cannot acquire and hold property in its own
    name.    Fausett & Co. v. Bogard, 
    685 S.W.2d 153
    , 155 (Ark. 1985); Lael v.
    Crook, 
    97 S.W.2d 436
    , 439 (Ark. 1936) (conveyance to an unincorporated
    association is invalid and does not pass legal title).        We thus agree with
    the district court that Brown had retained title to the single acre, no
    title    impediments   existed   to   forfeiture   under   section   853,   and   the
    government could proceed through criminal forfeiture proceedings.           We note
    that Brown could raise any claims of double jeopardy and excessive fines
    in such a proceeding.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 95-2723

Filed Date: 6/11/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021