Cite as: 507 U. S. 111 (1993)
Opinion of Stevens, J.
On April 12, 1989, in an ex parte proceeding, the District Court determined that there was probable cause to believe the premises were subject to forfeiture, and issued a summons and warrant for arrest authorizing the United States marshal to take possession of the premises. Respondent thereafter asserted a claim to the property, was granted the right to defend the action,3 and filed a motion for summary judgment.
During pretrial proceedings, the following facts were established. In 1982, Joseph Brenna gave respondent approximately $240,000 to purchase the home that she and her three children have occupied ever since. Respondent is the sole owner of the property. From 1981 until their separation in 1987, she maintained an intimate personal relationship with Brenna. There is probable cause to believe that the funds used to buy the house were proceeds of illegal drug trafficking, but respondent swears that she had no knowledge of its origins.
drug transaction, and was therefore subject to forfeiture pursuant to § 881(a)(7), which provides:
"The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:
. . . . . "(7) All real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment, except that no property shall be forfeited under this paragraph, to the extent of an interest of an owner, by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner."
No issue concerning the Government's claim under subparagraph (7) is presented before us.
3 The United States Marshals Service entered into an agreement with respondent that allows her to remain in possession of the property pending the outcome of the litigation.
115
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007