# Clara Torres v. $36,256.80 U.S. Currency

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · June 10, 1994 · 25 F.3d 1154

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486833

## Case

- **Full name:** Clara TORRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. $36,256.80 U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** June 10, 1994
- **Citations:** 25 F.3d 1154; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 14593; 1994 WL 257559
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pollack
- **Judges:** Kearse, Leval, Pollack
- **Cited by:** 105 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486833

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where agency seeking forfeiture knows property owner is “residing at a place of the government’s choosing,” due process requires agency to take steps to determine where owner is incarcerated
- finding that, after a notice was returned with the notation “Not at Chester County Prison,” the government was obliged to call the Bureau of Prisons and inquire about the inmate’s whereabouts
- noting, "where the mailed notice of [a drug-related] forfeiture is returned undelivered,” that notice is only insufficient if "[the plaintiff] was residing at a place of the government's choosing, not his own,” thus making the DEA’s lack of knowledge on his whereabouts "easily…
- finding that government failed to satisfy statutory requirements when notices sent to owner’s residence and prison facility were both returned undelivered
- finding standing on part of wife to challenge forfeiture of husband’s certificate of deposit where wife alleged she was the beneficial owner of a constructive trust over those funds

## Opinion text

*1162 MILTON POLLACK, Senior District Judge,
concurring in result:
I concur in so much of the majority ruling as holds that notice to Rafael Torres was insufficient because he was in the government’s custody when delivery of notice of forfeiture was unsuccessfully attempted. When the government seeks forfeiture of property of a person who is at the time in government custody, the agency that initiates the forfeiture must find out in what government facility the person is being held and send the notice to the right place.
I do not join in the majority’s theory that the record suggests the possibility of a constructive trust in favor of Clara Torres giving her standing if adequate notice to Rafael Torres had been given.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486833. Public record. Not legal advice.