Federal civil forfeiture cases involving CAFRA's appointment of counsel to defend claimants' primary residence

Updated March 9, 2011

We have found only two cases in which federal courts have appointed counsel to defend a home owners whose primary residence has been seized.  Please email webmaster if you find another.

UNITED STATES v. REAL PROPERTY AT 130 HIGH ROCK ACRES DRIVE, 1:06cv290, 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 59601

In this case, it appears from the pleadings that the minor claimants are per se unable to afford counsel and that this forfeiture involves a home that is being used as their primary residence. While such potential claimants have not made a request of this court, the court has, in loco parentis, Ordered the appointment of counsel by and through its Order of June 26, 2007. In furtherance of such Order, the court has contacted the Legal Services Corporation which has agreed to take such appointment from the court. In accordance with Section 983(b)(2)(A), the court appoints Mr. B. Eugene Hines, Esq., of the Buncombe County Bar and an attorney with the Legal Services Corporation, to represent O.S.H. and M.S.H. in this matter.

Recognizing that Legal Services  [*3] Corporation may have little experience in civil forfeiture actions, Mr. Hines is respectfully advised that civil forfeiture actions are governed by unique rules that require claimants to file both claims and answers within very specific time frames. Specifically, this action is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. Such rules may be found in Federal Civil Judicial Procedure an Rules, which is published by West. Counsel should pay particular interest to Rule G, especially Rule G(5)(a), specifying the requirements for filing a "claim" to the property and Rule G(5)(b) requiring the filing of an Answer to the Complaint within 20 days after filing the claim.

Inasmuch as such minor claimants are acting under legal disability until counsel is appointed for them and until a guardian is thereinafter appointed, the court will provide under Rule G(5)(a)(ii) that the claimants have until September 14, 2007, to file their claim.


UNITED STATES V. 777 GREENE AVE., 609 F.3d 94 (2nd Cir., 2010).

Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by the attorney that we appointed to represent the claimant-appellant in this appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(b)(2)(A). We hold that such a motion will not be granted unless counsel satisfies the requirements that we have established under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1976) and its progeny. Counsel's motion, which rests on the conclusory assertion that this appeal is not "viable," does not pass muster under this standard.