## Facts

- Charles Howerin sold cocaine from his residence at 817 N.E. 29th Drive in Wilton Manors, Florida, and was convicted in Florida court on drug charges.
- After the conviction, the United States filed a federal civil **in rem** forfeiture action against the real property under **21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7)**, alleging the home was used to commit or facilitate felony drug offenses.
- The property consisted of two contiguous parcels, commonly described as **Lot 1** and **Lot 56**, which together functioned as Howerin’s residential property.
- Howerin filed a claim asserting ownership and contesting forfeiture.
- The government moved for summary judgment. The district court **granted** summary judgment as to **Lot 56**, but **denied** it as to **Lot 1**, reasoning there was an insufficient connection between Lot 1 and the criminal activity.
- After a bench trial on Lot 1, the district court ruled **Lot 1 was not subject to forfeiture**.
- The parties filed cross-appeals: the government challenged the denial of forfeiture for Lot 1, and Howerin challenged forfeiture (including on Eighth Amendment grounds).

## Issues

1. For purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), how should a court define the “property” subject to forfeiture when the residence used to facilitate drug trafficking consists of two adjoining platted lots: may the court treat the lots separately and forfeit only one?
2. Does forfeiture of the entire residential property used to facilitate cocaine sales constitute an “excessive fine” barred by the Eighth Amendment?

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held that, on these facts, the forfeitable “property” was the **entire residential parcel**—both **Lot 1 and Lot 56**—rather than a single lot selected by the district court.
- The court concluded the government was **entitled to forfeiture of both lots** under § 881(a)(7).
- The court rejected Howerin’s Eighth Amendment challenge and held forfeiture of both lots **did not violate** the Excessive Fines Clause.
- The court **reversed** the district court’s ruling that Lot 1 was not forfeitable and remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with forfeiture of the full property.

## Legal Principles

- In a forfeiture action under **21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7)**, the statutory reference to forfeiture of “the whole of any lot or tract of land” does not require a court to treat formal lot lines as controlling when adjoining lots operate together as a single residential property used to facilitate drug felonies.
- Whether land constitutes the forfeitable “property” for § 881(a)(7) purposes may be evaluated **case by case**, with attention to the character and use of the land in relation to the offense.
- Forfeiture under § 881(a)(7) is at least partly punitive and is therefore subject to the **Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause** (as recognized in *Austin v. United States*).
- Excessiveness turns on proportionality: a forfeiture is unconstitutional only if it is **grossly disproportional** to the gravity of the offense, assessed in light of the seriousness of the drug trafficking conduct, the use of the property to facilitate the crime, and the penalties authorized by Congress for the underlying offenses.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Drive, Wilton Manors, Florida*, the Eleventh Circuit held that the government could forfeit the entire two-lot residential property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) because the residence functioned as a single tract used to facilitate cocaine sales, and the forfeiture of both lots was not a grossly disproportional punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause.


United States v. 817 N.E. 29th Drive, Wilton Manors, Florida, 175 F.3d 1304 (1999)