United States v. Pierre Clifton Marshall

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 8144·338 F.3d 990·2003 WL 21697965·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6479·2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14668
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 23, 200301-56061California1,877 words

Opinion

Opinion

Graber, J.

The defendant in this case was entitled to the return of a parcel of forfeited real property but, because the government had sold the property, the monetary equivalent had to be restored to him instead. We are called on to decide what date should be used for the substitute valuation. We agree with the district court that the appropriate yardstick is the property’s value when the government sold it and that, because on that date the debt attributable to the property exceeded the defendant’s equity in it, the government owes no damages.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Pierre Clifton Marshall and his wife bought a house on Arminta Street, Canoga Park, California, in 1990, with title being taken in the names of Marshall’s wife and his mother. The purchase price was $287,000, of which $247,000 was financed.

Marshall was arrested in 1992 for distribution of heroin. At the time of the arrest, police searched Marshall’s house on Arminta Street and found growing marijuana plants. At the same time, three automobiles belonging to Marshall were seized.

Immediately following the arrest, the two banks holding deeds of trust on the Arminta property stopped receiving payments…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.