Joint Motion Authorizing Interlocutory Sale of Real Property Subject to Forfeiture — United States v. Felicia Stanley

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division · No. 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF · Doc. 53 · 2023-02-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
  
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 4:22-cr-32-MW/MAF 
 
FELICIA JACKSON STANLEY  
and 
WILBERT JEAN STANLEY III 
______________________________/ 
 
 
     
 
JOINT MOTION AUTHORIZING INTERLOCUTORY SALE OF REAL 
PROPERTY SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE 
 
 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(7) and 
Supplemental Rule G(7), the Government and the Defendants, Felicia Jackson 
Stanley and Wilbert Jean Stanley, III (hereinafter, “the Defendants”) respectfully 
request an order for the interlocutory sale of one of the real properties that is 
subject to forfeiture in this proceeding, namely: 
Real property located and situated in Leon County, Florida, 
located at 1660 Kay Avenue, Units 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,and 8, Tallahassee, 
FL 32301, and all areas designated as common elements of 
Greenside Condominiums, further described in Leon County 
Official Records Book 5470 and Page 79, and known to the Leon 
County 
Property 
Appraiser 
as 
Parcel 
Identification 
#s 
3108360000010, 3108360000020, 3108360000030, 3108360000040, 
3108360000050, 3108360000060, 3108360000070, 3108360000080, 
respectively.  
  
(hereinafter, “the Property”). 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 1 of 8

2 
 
 
The United States has been informed by defense counsel for the Defendants, 
that notwithstanding the issuance of a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture in this case 
(ECF No. 41), the Defendants have received an offer to purchase the Property, and 
that the prospective buyer wishes to close immediately (or as soon as possible). 
The Government believes that it is in all parties’ best interests to allow this 
proposed sale to go through as scheduled.  Therefore, the Government requests that 
the Court enter an order authorizing the sale in accordance with the pending 
contract, and directing that the net proceeds from the sale be deposited into an 
account with the United States Marshals Service (USMS) and preserved as 
substitute res pending the outcome of this case.  
 
In support of its motion, the United States submits the following 
memorandum of law. 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
 
I. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 
1. 
On June 17, 2022, an Information was filed against the Defendants, 
charging them both in Count One with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation 
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; in Count Two with money laundering 
conspiracy, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h); and in 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 2 of 8

3 
 
Count Three1 or Count Four2 with making false statements, in violation of Title 18, 
United States Code, Section 1001. (ECF No. 1) 
2. 
The Information included a criminal forfeiture provision pursuant to 
Title 18, United States Code, Sections 982(a)(1) and 982(a)(2), and Title 28, 
United States Code, Section 2461(c), that put the Defendants on notice that the 
United States would seek to forfeit the above-described property as property 
constituting and derived from proceeds traceable to offenses described in Counts 
One, Three, and Four, or as property involved in the offense alleged in Count Two, 
of the Information. (Id.) 
3. 
On July 29, 2022, the Defendants pled guilty to all four counts of the 
Information.  As part of their guilty pleas, the Defendants agreed that their sentences 
included the forfeiture of all forfeitable assets which included the above-described 
property. (ECF Nos. 24-25 at 2-3) 
3. 
This Court issued a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture on November 29, 
2022. (ECF No. 41).  
4. 
On or about January 22, 2023, defense counsel notified the 
undersigned that the Defendants had received an offer to buy the Property that they 
wished to accept.  A copy of the pending contract is attached and incorporated as 
 
1 Defendant Felicia Jackson-Stanley was charged in Count Three. 
2 Defendant Wilbert Stanley III was charged in Count Four. 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 3 of 8

4 
 
Exhibit A.  The Government has reviewed the pending contract, and it appears to 
be an arm’s length transaction for fair and reasonable market value, with standard 
allowances for fees and costs.   
4. 
Because it is in all parties’ best interests for the pending sale to 
proceed as scheduled, the Government seeks an order authorizing the sale of the 
Property in accordance with the pending contract, and further directing that the sale 
proceeds be deposited into an interest-bearing account with the USMS to be held 
as substitute res pending the outcome of this criminal case.    
II.  
MEMORANDUM OF LAW 
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(7), at any time before 
entry of a final forfeiture order, the Court, in accordance with Supplemental Rule 
G(7), may order the interlocutory sale of property alleged to be forfeitable. Rule 
G(7)(b)(i) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and 
Asset Forfeiture Actions provides that the court can order an interlocutory sale for 
“good cause,” which here is the agreement of the parties that an interlocutory sale 
will maximize the net value of the real property. The rule further specifies that: 
Sale proceeds are substitute res subject to forfeiture in place of the 
property that was sold. The proceeds must be held in an interest-bearing 
account maintained by the United States pending conclusion of the 
forfeiture action. 
 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2. Courts will order an interlocutory sale where: (1) property is 
perishable or subject to depreciation, decay, or injury; (2) the expense of 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 4 of 8

5 
 
maintaining the property is excessive or disproportionate to the property’s value; 
(3) a stay, lengthy pretrial proceedings, or some other factor delays the litigation; 
or (4) other exigent circumstances arise. An example of this is when the real 
property subject to forfeiture has delinquent mortgage payments, especially where 
a mortgage is threatening or attempting to foreclose on the property. 
Here, the Property consists of eight residential units located in four 
buildings.  Without an order authorizing the interlocutory sale, the Defendants, or 
now the Government, will be obligated to continue paying maintenance costs, 
insurance, taxes, and any other invoices for the Property during the pendency of 
this case in order to protect its value.  The Government and Defendants request 
action by this Court to preserve the availability of a portion of the net equity in the 
Property and to ensure maximum value is obtained from its sale. The Government, 
Defendants, and closing agent (a Florida attorney), agree to the interlocutory sale 
of the Property, and agree that the net proceeds from the sale (after satisfaction of 
other lien holder’s claims) will be deposited in the Department of Justice Seized 
Asset Deposit Fund and substituted as the property in this action pending a final 
judgment in this case. 
Where all interested parties agree, the Court is free to fashion the method of 
sale designed to achieve the highest and best sales price. Rule G(7)(b)(iii). Here, 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 5 of 8

6 
 
the Government, Defendant, and closing agent all agree that proceeding with the 
pending contract is in all parties’ best interests.  An order authorizing the sale in 
accordance with the pending contract will serve the United States’ statutory 
interest in preserving the full value of the Property owed to it and will do so 
without unduly infringing on other interests, including the third-party buyers.  It 
will also relieve the owner, or Government, of ongoing costs associated with 
maintaining the Property during the pendency of this case. 
With regards to sale procedures and the appropriate agency for conducting 
the sale, the United States requests that the Court allow the sale to be conducted by 
the licensed Brokers and Closing Agent identified in the pending contract, and 
according to the terms already agreed upon in that contract.  As noted above, the 
United States has reviewed the pending contract and believes that it is an arm’s 
length transaction for fair and reasonable market value, with standard allowances 
for fees and costs.  The contract is a form that has been approved by Florida 
Realtors, and appears to have been negotiated by licensed Brokers with no 
connection to the crimes alleged in this prosecution.  The United States also has no 
reason to believe that the third-party buyers have any connection to the underlying 
crimes.   
Because the parties to the pending contract have already negotiated the terms 
and arranged for a closing that appears to be in accordance with Florida law, it will 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 6 of 8

7 
 
be more efficient to allow the sale to proceed as agreed than try to involve a new 
agency at the last minute.  
CONCLUSION 
 
The United States and Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter 
an order that: 
1. authorizes the interlocutory sale of the Property in accordance with the 
pending contract,  
2. directs that the Closing Agent deduct and satisfy the following expenses 
from the sales proceeds: 
a. All real property taxes due and owning on the subject properties and 
the prorated portion of future taxes as are required to complete the 
sale of the subject properties; 
b. Such other liens and costs as are ordinarily required to be paid at 
closing;  
3. directs the Closing Agent to disburse the net proceeds obtained from the sale 
of the Property to the U.S. Marshals Service (via wiring instructions to be 
provided on or before closing) to be held in an interest bearing account and 
preserved as substitute res.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 7 of 8

02/02/2023
Case 4:22-cr-00032-MW-MAF     Document 53     Filed 02/02/23     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flnd.433859.53.0.pdf

Size

413,929 bytes

SHA-256

ee9f0e615b2a8684a5e0469038be5e87525ea7c5e36e83d76003d057e70f5b1e

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flnd.433859.53.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)