111989P.pdf   04/02/2012  United States  v.  Robyn White
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  11-1989
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Wollman, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - Forfeiture. White could not use an ancillary proceeding
   under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 853(n) to relitigate the nexus between the criminal
   acts of her ex-husband and the forfeited proceeds from the sale of stock;
   since White claimed both a contractual and a marital interest in the stock,
   the court would look to Minnesota state law to determine whether she
   had a valid legal interest in the shares; terms of an alleged oral contract
   between White and her husband were too vague and indefinite to create
   an enforceable contractual interest in the proceeds; even if there were an
   oral contract, it created an interest in a sum of money equal to one-half of
   increased value of the shares and not in the shares themselves; any breach
   of the oral contract by her husband did not confer upon White a legal
   interest in the sale proceeds, and, as a result, White did not have standing
   to contest the forfeiture based on a contractual interest in the stock
   proceeds; under Minnesota law, White did not have a marital interest in
   the proceeds because she was not reasonably without cause to believe the
   property was subject to forfeiture at the time she filed for divorce.