U.S. v. Miller

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering civil garnishment order within defendant‘s criminal action that found that defendant and his wife each had fifty percent interest in marital home, and that fifty percent of proceeds from sale of home could be used to pay restitution in defendant’s criminal case. While wife asserted that she was entitled to 100 percent of said proceeds because she was only individual named in property’s title, Dist. Ct. could properly look beyond title, where record showed that paper title in wife’s name was unreliable, since title stemmed from series of fraudulent transactions and forged signatures. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that both defendant and his wife had equal control over house, where: (1) payment for at least one mortgage came from joint bank account, where defendant and his wife both deposited their paychecks; and (2) property was used as family home for both defendant and his wife.