United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Located At 20010 S.W. 160 St. (In re Pineiro), Case No. 15-21476-CIV-GAYLES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20010 S.W. 160 STREET,MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, INCLUDING THE APPURTENANCES THERETO ANDTHE IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, Defendant In Rem.SANDRA PINEIRO, Claimant.

Case No. 15-21476-CIV-GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

May 3, 2016

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff United States of America's (the "United States") Motion for Summary Judgment as to Claimant's Standing [ECF No. 65]. The United States argues that Claimant Sandra Pineiro (the "Claimant") lacks standing to contest this civil forfeiture action and thus her claim should be stricken as a matter of law. To date, the Claimant has not responded to the United States' motion. The Court has carefully considered the motion, the Statement of Material Facts filed in support thereof, the record, and the applicable law. For the reasons that follow, the motion for summary judgment shall be denied.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT¹

The United States seeks the forfeiture of One Parcel of Real Property Located at 20010 Southwest 160th Street, Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, including the appurtenances theretoand the improvements thereon (the "Defendant Property"). On April 20, 2015, the United States filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem ("Complaint") against various real properties, including the Defendant Property, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(7). In the Complaint, the United States alleged that the Defendant Property was subject to forfeiture because it was used or intended to be used, in any matter or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission by Jose Torres and others of the felony drug offense of manufacturing and distributing marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).

On May 12, 2015, the Claimant filed a Verified Claim ("Claim") alleging that she "has an ownership interest in the [Defendant Property], [and] has the right to manage, sell or donate the [Defendant Property]." [ECF No. 12]. She included an Answer to the Complaint in the same filing. According to Miami-Dade County property records, a warranty deed for the Defendant Property was recorded on February 21, 2007, at Book 25384, Page 0452, which lists the Claimant as the grantee. See Cl.'s Dep. Ex. 6.

On May 22, 2015, in accordance with Rule G(6) of Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and Southern District of Florida Local Rule 26.1(g), the United States sent the First Set of Rule G(6) Special Interrogatories to the Claimant, to be answered under oath within twenty-one days after the date of service. The United States received the Claimant's responses on May 29, 2015.

On May 24, 2015, in accordance with Rule G(4)(a) of the Supplemental Rules, the United States commenced publication of a notice of this forfeiture action on May 24, 2015. Any person who claimed a legal interest in the Defendant Property pursuant to such publication was required to file a Verified Claim with the Court within 60 days after the first date of publication.

On June 10, 2015, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for CitiMortgage Inc. ("MERS") filed a Verified Claim, asserting a property interest based on amortgage on the Defendant Property in the original principal sum of $140,000.00, evidenced by a Real Estate Mortgage dated February 20, 2007, as recorded on February 21, 2007, in Official Records Book 25384, Page 454 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida. MERS also filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint [ECF No. 21]. On February 9, 2016, this Court granted the Unopposed Motion for Substitution of Claimant MERS by U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AMC4 ("U.S. Bank") [ECF No. 62]. U.S. Bank is the current holder of the mortgage on the Defendant Property. No other person filed a Verified Claim with respect to the Defendant Property.

On August 17, 2015, the United States sent its First Request for Production of Documents, requesting that the Claimant produce for inspecting and copying the items listed therein within thirty days or earlier from the date of service. On August 19, 2015, the United States sent the First Set of Interrogatories to the Claimant, to be answered under oath within thirty days after the date of service. The United States received her responses on October 14, 2015. On that date, the Claimant was deposed.

At her deposition, the Claimant confirmed she filed both the Claim and Answer. From 2003 to 2009, the Claimant lived at 23901 S.W. 212th Avenue, Miami, Florida, with Torres, her two children, and Torres's mother. Torres operated a nursery business at 20010 S.W. 160th Street (the Defendant Property). When the Claimant was asked at her deposition about the source of funds used to purchase and maintain the Defendant Property, she testified that the Defendant Property was purchased with money from Torres's nursery business, and the mortgage payments were paid with Torres's money. The Claimant testified she has not paid or contributed any of her own money toward the Defendant Property.

The Claimant confirmed she never occupied the Defendant Property. The Claimant was shown a copy of the Warranty Deed dated February 20, 2007, indicating her as the grantee, whose address is 20010 S.W. 160th Street, Miami, Florida. When asked why Torres's name was not on the property documents, she stated that he never wanted to place the property under both of their names. In her Claim, she declares she "has an ownership interest in the property, has the right to manage, sell or donate the property." [ECF No. 12]. When asked to explain the basis for this statement, she responded, "Because the property was purchased at a time when I was with the father of my daughter [Torres], and I provided—well, I did not provide economically, financially, directly, but I was in the house because of that child that we had, or we have between us, that's why I'm making the claim." Cl.'s Dep. 75-76. She testified that after she and Torres separated, Torres told her he was going to sell one or two of the Defendant Properties and give her some money so she could buy a house for her and their daughter, but this agreement was never memorialized in writing.

The Claimant testified that she first learned Torres was arrested on February 4, 2014, when law enforcement officers came to her apartment. She remembered providing a written statement after being advised of her Miranda rights on February 12, 2014. Her sworn statement reads:

I, Sandra Pineiro, state that I have not gone to the homes located at 23901 Southwest 12th Avenue and 20010 Southwest 168th [sic] Street for over four years, and I had no way of knowing about what he was engaging in on any of these properties.

I, Sandra Pineiro, state that we have a daughter and we separated four years ago. We were living together and we are not legally married.

Cl.'s Dep. Ex. 2. She testified that she had no indication that the Defendant Property was being used to commit a felony offense, and, although the Defendant Property was titled in her name, she had no contact with the Defendant Property after she separated from Torres. She stated that she has been living at the apartment listed in her Claim since 2010.

The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the United States' Notice of Judicial Forfeiture. In her Answer, she admitted the United States' statutory and judicial allegations but represented that she was without sufficient information or belief to admit or deny the United States' factual allegations. At her deposition, she denied knowledge of the factual allegations. The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the United States' Request for Production of Documents. She has filed no additional pleadings in this case nor has she provided any additional information.

On February 22, 2016, the United States filed a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the United States and U.S. Bank for the Court's approval, wherein the United States agreed to make certain payments to U.S. Bank in satisfaction of its claim should the United States obtain a Final Order of Forfeiture for the Defendant Property [ECF No. 64]. The Court approved the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement on May 3, 2016 [ECF No. 69]. All that remains of this action is the resolution of the Claimant's claim.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Civil forfeiture actions are governed by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Supp. R. G(1). The legal standard for granting a motion for summary judgment in an in rem civil forfeiture action is the same as it is under Rule 56 in an ordinary civil action. E.g., United States v. 939 Salem St., Lynnfield, Mass., 917 F. Supp. 2d 151, 154-55 (D. Mass. 2013).

Summary judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), "is appropriate only if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. —, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866 (2014) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, 344 (2010). "By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat anotherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original).

An issue is "genuine" when a reasonable trier of fact, viewing all of the record evidence, could rationally find in favor of the nonmoving party in light of his burden of proof. Harrison v. Culliver, 746 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir. 2014). And a fact is "...