NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-5062
RANDY LEE HAMMITT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
SANDRA MARIE HAMMITT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: December 26, 2006
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs Randy Lee and Sandra Marie Hammitt ("the Hammitts") appeal the
decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing the Hammitts' Fifth
Amendment takings claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 The Hammitts held the
leasehold of real property that was the subject of a civil in rem forfeiture proceeding based
on federal crimes committed by the owner of the property, to which the property is
presumed to have contributed. The Hammitts argue that this constituted a taking of their
leasehold, warranting just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Federal
Claims held that the only path of relief for the Hammitts was in the district court and
regional circuit in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §983, and not in the Court of Federal Claims.
We affirm the dismissal on this ground.
DISCUSSION
In 1999 the Hammitts entered into a 25-year lease agreement with Phillip Mark
Vaughan for certain real property including a house in Gastonia, North Carolina, in which
the Hammitts lived ("the Gastonia Property"). The lease agreement contained a first option
to purchase the property. In 2001 the Hammitts attempted to exercise the purchase option
after Mr. Vaughan was indicted and charged with various racketeering-type federal crimes.
Mr. Vaughan refused to sell the property to the Hammitts. They filed a quiet title claim in
the Superior Court of Gaston County on April 30, 2003, and obtained a default judgment on
June 3, 2003 when Mr. Vaughan failed to respond, apparently due to his incarceration.
On May 30, 2003, while the quiet title case was pending in Gaston County, the
United States filed a complaint under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §981
et seq., in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
seeking civil forfeiture in rem of various properties associated with Mr. Vaughan, including
1 Hammitt v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 165 (2005).
2006-5062 2
the Gastonia Property. The notice of proposed forfeiture was posted on the Gastonia
Property where the Hammitts were residing, and stated that "a person asserting an
interest in seized property . . . shall file an answer to the Government's complaint for
forfeiture not later than 20 days after the date of the filing of the claim." 18 U.S.C.
§983(a)(4)(B).
The Hammitts filed a "Verified Statement of Interest and Show Cause" in the district
court on June 20, 2003, but did not directly file an answer to the complaint, and in any
event exceeded the 20-day response period by one day. The Hammitts' argument was that
their state adjudication of property rights controlled, and they concurrently sought to
enforce their quiet title judgment in state court. The district court held the Hammitts in
default under the forfeiture statute.
The statute contains an "innocent owner defense," §983(d), that "An innocent
owner's interest in property shall not be forfeited under any civil forfeiture statute."
§983(d)(1). The statute provides no additional procedure for innocent owners who receive
actual notice for the filing of the complaint for forfeiture of the 20-day statutory period for
answering the complaint. The Hammitts unsuccessfully petitioned the district court and
appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by way of mandamus motion, which the
court denied. In re Hammitt, 81 F. App'x 790 (4th Cir. December 3, 2003).
On October 26, 2004 the federal district court issued final judgment to the United
States for civil forfeiture of the Gastonia Property, and on March 11, 2005 the district court
ordered the Hammitts to vacate the Gastonia Property. They resisted, and only after
contempt proceedings were brought (apparently at the initiative of the holder of the
2006-5062 3
mortgage, whose interest in the property had been timely asserted and had been
recognized by the district court), did they vacate the property.
On April 7, 2005 the Hammitts filed a Fifth Amendment takings claim in the Court of
Federal Claims, seeking just compensation for the taking by the United States of their
leasehold and option interest in the Gastonia Property. The Court of Federal Claims held
that the only remedy available to the Hammitts was through the district court and the
proceedings provided by 18 U.S.C. §983. The Hammitts do not now dispute that the
district court had authority to order the in rem forfeiture of the Gastonia Property. However,
they argue that their constitutional claim cannot be preempted, and that the government's
taking of their property interest, although there was no wrongdoing on their part, raises an
issue of Fifth Amendment taking.
The Court of Federal Claims applied Vereda, Ltda. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1367
(Fed. Cir. 2001), which held, in connection with the forfeiture provision in the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. §881(a), that
when "a 'specific and comprehensive scheme for administrative and judicial review' is
provided by Congress, the Court of Federal Claims' Tucker Act jurisdiction over the subject
matter covered by the scheme is preempted." Id. at 1375 (quoting St. Vincent's Medical
Center v. United States, 32 F.3d 548, 549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The Court of Federal
Claims held that the provisions in 18 U.S.C. §983 meets the criteria of being "specific and
comprehensive," that they provide for notice and the opportunity to respond in the district
court, and that Tucker Act jurisdiction is preempted.
Applying Vereda, the Court of Federal Claims correctly held that whether the
Hammitts' participation was adequate and timely, and whether the adjudications were
2006-5062 4
correct, are not subject to collateral review by the Court of Federal Claims. The forfeiture
statute provides reasonable procedures, and the Hammitts' claim was presented, in
mandamus petition, to the cognizant circuit court of appeals. There remains no basis for
Tucker Act jurisdiction.
No costs.
2006-5062 5