U.S. v. Furando

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing without conducting hearing or giving opportunity to amend claimant’s section 853(n) petition for adjudication of her property rights to property that Dist. Ct. had entered initial order of forfeiture, where government had asserted that said property was connected to criminal case to which claimant’s husband and others had pleaded guilty. Section 853(n)(3) allows Dist. Ct. to dismiss section 853(n) petition without hearing if petition asserts only conclusory legal interest in subject property, and claimant’s petition contained only conclusory allegations of ownership with respect to cash claims, where claimant failed to identify dates of transfer, and with respect to claims for house, vehicle and gifts, where claimant failed to adequately explain how state law supported her purported legal interest in said properties. However, remand was required, because Dist. Ct. should have conducted hearing on instant petition or allowed claimant opportunity to amend petition, since defects in petition were not incurable. Dist. Ct., though, did not err in allowing for interlocutory sale of different residence, where claimant had agreed to said sale and where residence was subject to deterioration and non-payment of real estate taxes.