United States v. Johnston

13 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17617, 1998 WL 414211
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedJanuary 29, 1998
Docket93-130-CR-ORL-22C
StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (United States v. Johnston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Johnston, 13 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17617, 1998 WL 414211 (M.D. Fla. 1998).

Opinion

ORDER

GEORGE C. YOUNG, Senior District Judge.

On October 24, 1997, Magistrate Judge James G. Glazebrook issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt.369). Therein, he recommended that this Court grant the United States’ “Motion to Set Aside as Fraudulent Conveyance of Forfeited Property or in the Alternative a Determination That K & J[] Limited Liability Company is the Alter Ego of the Defendant Beryle Johnston” (Dkt.332), filed May 6,1997. As a basis for that recommendation, Judge Glazebrook determined that the conveyance at issue was fraudulent, and had resulted from a bogus loan transaction engineered for the purpose of defeating the United States’ interest in forfeited property. Judge Glazebrook found that the purported loan had never been made; it merely existed on paper.

On November 3, 1997, Kathleen H. Johnston filed a document entitled “Objection to Report and Recommendation” (Dkt.370). The Court determines that, as detailed below, the various arguments raised in that document are without merit.

The objections asserted in paragraphs 1 and 2 relate to inconsequential matters.

Paragraph 3 states: “There are two contradictory sentences in the middle paragraph [of page 7 of the Report and Recommendation], It first states that a trustee’s deed was recorded on August 10, then states that a trustee’s deed was transferred on August 6.” However, there is nothing contradictory about these findings in the Report and Recommendation. The trustee’s deed (Govt.Ex.8) plainly reflects that it was executed on August 6, 1995, and recorded on August 10,1995.

The hearsay objection raised in paragraph 4 is without merit. Additionally, even if the alleged hearsay was excluded, Judge Glazed-brook’s ultimate conclusion is amply supported by the remainder of the evidence introduced at the evidentiary hearings.

Paragraph 6 of the Objection implies that there was no evidence that Beryle Johnston opened a bank account for K & J Farming Investments Limited Liability Company. That implication is erroneous. There is abundant evidence that Beryle Johnston opened the account. See Dkt. 373 at 142; Dkt. 374 at 11. Whether he had authority to do so is immaterial to Judge Glazebrook’s ultimate conclusion.

The objections raised in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 miss the point. The record indeed reflects that Kathleen Johnston made contributions to the K & J account; however, it is clear that those funds were capital contributions, rather than loans. There is absolutely no evidence that Kathleen Johnston, individually or on behalf of K & J, ever made a loan to Fleetwood Farms.

Finally, paragraphs 5 and 10 attack Judge Glazebrook’s conclusion that the conveyance at issue was' fraudulent. The undersigned judge has read the entire file, including all of the transcripts of the hearings before Magistrate Judge Glazebrook, and finds the Magistrate’s conclusion tp be well-supported, even compelled, by the evidence. It is clear that the transaction upon which the transfer was based was a complete and utter sham, designed to defeat the interest , of the United States in the forfeited property, and there never was a loan made by K & J to Fleet-wood Farms.

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The October 24, 1997 Report and Recommendation (Dkt.369) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. 1

2.. Kathleen H. Johnston’s Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt.370), filed November 3,1997, is OVERRULED.

*1318 3. The United States’ Motion to Set Aside as Fraudulent Conveyance of Forfeited Property (Dkt.332), filed May 6, 1997, is GRANTED.

4. The Court hereby sets aside, as fraudulent, the August 6, 1995 transfer (recorded on August 10, 1995) of the 3,000 acre property (identified in the attachment to this Order) from Fleetwood Farms Partnership to K & J Farming Investments Limited Liability Company. The Court finds and declares that the ownership and title to the real property described in the attachment to this Order is in Fleetwood Farms Partnership. The Court further finds and declares that the partnership shares of Fleetwood Farms Partnership are as follows: 25% United States, 25% Kathleen Johnston, and 50% M & B Custom Farming Corporation.

ATTACHMENT

PARCEL I.

Lots 4, 5, and 6 in Section 15; Lots 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 in Section 22; the South 16 acres of Lot 1 and all of Lots 2 and 3, and the S)é SW )4 of Section 16; and Lots 1, 2 and 9 in Section 21; all of said described real estate being in Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., together with all accretions thereto, including accretions to’Lots 5 and 6 in said Section 22, subject to highways and to easements of record, if any; and subject also to reservation by Dartmouth College of one-half of all oil, gas and minerals.

The real estate herein conveyed (excepting the S/6 SW % of Section 16, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M.) includes all lands lying within the boundaries of the following metes and bounds description, to-wit: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Lot 5, Section 15, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., Dakota County, Nebraska, thence due east along the North line of said Lot 5 and the center lien of said Section 15, extended, to the right bank of the Missouri River, thence Southeasterly along the right bank of the Missouri River to its intersection with the south line of Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., said County and State, extended; thence due west along the south line of said Section 22, extended to the Southwest corner of said Lot 7, in said Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., thence due north along the west line of said Lot 7, in said Section 22, a distance of 1745 feet; thence south 80° west, a distance of 2615 feet to the west line of Lot 5, Section 22, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., in said County and State; thence due north along the west line of said Lot 5, said Section 22, extended, 990 feet; thence south 82° west for a distance of 3902 feet; thence north 65° west for a distance of 1300 feet; thence north 3° east, for a distance of 1865 feet; thence due east for a distance of 1052 feet; thence due north for a distance of 1220 feet; to the government meander comer on the north line of Section 21, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M. in said county and state; thence North along the west line of Lot 2, Section 16, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M. in said County and State to the northwest comer of said Lot 2 in said Section 16; thence east along the north line of Lot 2 extended, in Section 16, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M. in said county and state, to the southwest corner of Lot 5 in Section 15, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P.M., in said county and state, thence north along the west line of said Lot 5, Section 15, Township 27 North, Range 9 East of the 6th P .M. in said county and state to the place of beginning.

PARCEL II.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Laundering of monetary instruments
18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B)
Criminal forfeitures
21 U.S.C. § 853(c)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17617, 1998 WL 414211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-johnston-flmd-1998.