Supplemental Brief re: 61 MOTION for Interlocutory Sale as to Carl Delano Torjagbo filed… — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 171)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC · Doc. 171 · 2025-02-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The government's post-hearing brief in United States v. Carl Delano Torjagbo, No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed February 25, 2025 as Doc. 171. It supports the government's motion (Doc. 61) for interlocutory sale of three Georgia properties, following an evidentiary hearing on December 9, 2024. The brief summarizes testimony from three witnesses on homeowner's association costs, squatters and unpaid property taxes of $66,441.28, $7,937.09 and $3,614.09. It argues that all three properties qualify for sale under Supplemental Rule G(7)(b) because of tax defaults, and that one home also qualifies for risk of decay and other good cause. The six-page brief is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Nicholas L. Evert.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
CARL DELANO TORJAGBO 
A/K/A KARL LUCIUS DELANO 
Criminal Action No.  
1:22-CR-171-MLB-RDC 
 
POST-HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF  
MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (DOC. 61) 
The United States of America, by Richard S. Moultrie, Jr., United States 
Attorney, and Nicholas L. Evert, Assistant United States Attorney, for the 
Northern District of Georgia, hereby files this Post-Hearing Brief in support of its 
Motion for the interlocutory sale of 5114 Greythorne Lane, Marietta, Georgia; 101 
Holt Drive, Acworth, Georgia; and Tract 4 Fiber Drive, Cartersville, Georgia 
(“the Motion”). (Doc. 61). 
The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion on December 9, 2024. 
Three witnesses testified: the treasurer of the Brookshyre Manor Homeowner’s 
Association (“HOA”), Janet Franchi; Cobb County Police Department Detective 
Adriano Ghisi; and Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Scott Caruana. 
Ms. Franchi, who lives next door to 5114 Greythorne Lane, testified that after 
Defendant’s arrest, his cousin was initially looking after the property, but that 
the cousin stopped looking after the property in early 2023, and nobody has been 
looking after the property since then. (Hearing Transcript [167] (“Tr.”) at 10, 13). 
In the months that followed, the home started to fall into disrepair. (Tr. at 13-16). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 171     Filed 02/25/25     Page 1 of 6

2 
 
The HOA undertook the maintenance of the front of the property. (Tr. at 22). As 
of the hearing, the HOA had spent $3,400 maintaining Defendant’s home on his 
behalf, all while he had failed to pay his dues to the HOA. (Tr. at 11-12, 24). The 
HOA is spending at least $150 per month maintaining the property. (Tr. at 22). 
While the HOA has been able to prevent the front of the house from falling into 
decay, it has been unable to do so with respect to the back of the house. (Tr. at 36-
37). Photographic evidence shows that the pool behind the house is full of murky 
standing water and debris, and the HOA is concerned about what type of safety 
hazards this may present. (Tr. at 14-16). In total, as of early December 2024, the 
HOA had lost a total $10,719.93 as a result of Defendant’s failure to pay his dues 
and maintain his property. (Tr. at 27). 
Detective Ghisi testified that the house at 5114 Greythorne Lane has been 
targeted for adverse possession by squatters. (Tr. at 47-52). Specifically, an 
individual entered the house and (falsely) asserted that he had a claim to the 
house by virtue of having paid taxes on the property. (Tr. at 47-50). Even after 
this individual left, at least one other potential squatter was found at the house. 
(Tr. at 51).  
Special Agent Caruana testified that, as of December 3, 2024 (for Greythorne 
Lane and Holt Drive) and December 4, 2024 (for Fiber Drive), there were 
$66,441.28 in unpaid taxes for 5114 Greythorne Lane, $7,937.09 in unpaid taxes 
for 101 Holt Drive, and $3,614.09 in unpaid taxes for Tract 4 Fiber Drive. (Tr. at 
60–66).  
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(7) authorizes a district court to 
order the interlocutory sale of property alleged to be forfeitable in accordance 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 171     Filed 02/25/25     Page 2 of 6

3 
 
with Rule G(7) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and 
Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Supplemental Rules”). Supplemental Rule G(7) 
authorizes a district court to order the interlocutory sale of all or part of the 
property subject to a pending asset forfeiture action if certain conditions are met. 
Specifically, Supplemental Rule G(7)(b) provides that upon the motion of a party: 
. . . the court may order all or part of the property sold if: 
(A) the property is perishable or at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury by 
being detained in custody pending the action; 
(B) the expense of keeping the property is excessive or is disproportionate 
to its fair market value; 
(C) the property is subject to a mortgage or to taxes on which the owner is 
in default; or 
(D) the court finds other good cause. 
Supp. R. G(7)(b)(i). 
While there is a dearth of caselaw from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 
Circuit (and in general) regarding interlocutory sales, a number of courts have 
ordered interlocutory sales where one or more of the enumerated conditions are 
met. See United States v. Furando, 40 F.4th 567, 581 (7th Cir. 2022) (affirming grant 
of motion for interlocutory sale where district court adopted and incorporated 
government’s argument that property was “subject to deterioration and non-
payment of real estate taxes”); United States v. Smith, No. 3:08-CR-31-JMH, 2010 
WL 4962917, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2010) (granting motion for interlocutory sale 
where defendant had allowed mortgages to become delinquent); United States v. 
Gianelli, 594 F. Supp. 2d 148, 150 (D. Mass. 2009) (ordering interlocutory sale 
where “mortgage on [property was] in default and payments [were] not being 
made” and “the equity in the property available to the government in the event 
forfeiture [was] ordered continue[d] to diminish”); see also United States v. One 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 171     Filed 02/25/25     Page 3 of 6

4 
 
Parcel of Real Prop. Described as Lot 41, Berryhill Farm Ests., 128 F.3d 1386, 1390 
(10th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that district court had ordered interlocutory sale 
where, inter alia, “real estate taxes, mortgage payments, and monthly expenses 
were accruing and threatening to impair the equity in the property”).1 
The use of the word “or” in Supplemental Rule G(7)(b) clearly indicates that 
the Court is authorized to order an interlocutory sale for any one of the reasons 
in subsections (A) through (D).  
Here, all three of the properties are subject to interlocutory sale pursuant to 
subsection (C), as they are “subject to … taxes on which the owner is in 
default[.]” Specifically, S.A. Caruana testified that there were $66,441.28 in 
unpaid taxes for 5114 Greythorne Lane, $7,937.09 in unpaid taxes for 101 Holt 
Drive, and $3,614.09 in unpaid taxes for Tract 4 Fiber Drive. (Tr. at 62, 64, 66). 
Based on the plain language of Supplemental Rule G(7)(b), this alone is sufficient 
for the Court to order an interlocutory sale. Moreover, if the government is 
ultimately able to forfeit the properties, it will have to pay these taxes, which will 
diminish “the equity in the property available to the government in the event 
forfeiture is ordered[.]” See Gianelli, 594 F. Supp. 2d at 150. The available equity 
will only decrease further as additional taxes and penalties accrue on the 
properties.  
 
1 But see United States v. Benbow, No. 804CR226T17TBM, 2006 WL 2850100, at *3 
(M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2006) (finding that interlocutory sale in a criminal case was 
improper because it essentially amounted to pre-conviction forfeiture). “Benbow’s 
validity has not been endorsed or adopted by any other court[.]” United States v. 
Guzman, No. 3:08-CR-00023-2, 2013 WL 12228400, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 7, 2013). 
Moreover, to the extent Benbow can be read to suggest that interlocutory sales are 
inappropriate in criminal cases, that is at odds with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(7). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 171     Filed 02/25/25     Page 4 of 6

5 
 
5114 Greythorne Lane is also subject to interlocutory sale based on subsection 
(A), as the property is “at risk of deterioration, decay, or injury[.]” Nobody has 
been looking after the property on Defendant’s behalf since early 2023. (Tr. at 13). 
At the very least, this has already resulted in the area behind the house (which 
includes the pool) falling into a state of decay. The front of the house would 
likely have suffered the same fate, but for the efforts of the HOA, which has 
spent thousands of dollars (and counting) to prevent the front of the house from 
falling into disrepair. The harm to the government from this will be two-fold if it 
is ultimately able to forfeit the property: (1) if the house continues to decay, the 
amount that the government will be able to sell it for will decrease; and (2) the 
government will likely have to reimburse the HOA for some or all of the 
expenses it has incurred (and those expenses continue to rise), which will 
diminish the value that can be recovered from the house. See Gianelli, 594 F. 
Supp. 2d at 150. 
Finally, pursuant to subsection (D), there is “other good cause” for the 
interlocutory sale of 5114 Greythorne Lane, as the house has been targeted for 
adverse possession by squatters. First, the squatters are emblematic of the fact 
that nobody has been caring for the house for almost two years. Second, the 
presence of squatters is troubling for the neighbors. And third, if another 
squatter comes to the property and refuses to leave, there could need to be time-
consuming and potentially costly eviction litigation.  
Conclusion 
For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully request that the Court 
grant the Motion for Interlocutory Sale (Doc. 61). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 171     Filed 02/25/25     Page 5 of 6

6 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
RICHARD S. MOULTRIE, JR. 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
/s/ Nicholas L. Evert 
NICHOLAS L. EVERT 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 693062 
nicholas.evert@usdoj.gov 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 171     Filed 02/25/25     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.171.0.pdf

Size

120,794 bytes

SHA-256

7075b657fb4cdf4c4745bc853765dd46c3c71dbedb2820bb920c2fc92021d759

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.303267.171.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)