Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Pardo

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

November 12, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MIRIAM PARDO; CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; and REGIONS BANK, Defendants.

          ORDER

          CECILIA M. ALTONAGA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS CAUSE came before the Court on the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 41], filed September 26, 2019. The Government filed this action[1] to foreclose a criminal restitution judgment lien it obtained in case number 18-cr-20504-Moreno, [2] against property owned by Defendant, Miriam Pardo. (See Compl. [ECF No. 1]). On October 29, 2019, Pardo filed her Response [ECF No. 45] opposing entry of summary judgment. Plaintiff filed its Reply [ECF No. 46] on November 5, 2019. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' written submissions and applicable law. Because the Court finds that there is no material fact in dispute, judgment will be entered in favor of the United States as a matter of law.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On August 23, 2018, Pardo pleaded guilty in case number 18-cr-20504-Moreno, to conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371. (See Plea Agreement [CR ECF No. 23]). In the Plea Agreement, Pardo agreed to the entry of a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $125, 990.00, the sum of money equal in value to the gross proceeds traceable to the commission of the violation to which she pleaded guilty. (See id. ¶ 17). In addition, Pardo agreed restitution was mandatory and to the imposition of a restitution judgment in the amount of $1, 016, 724.97. (See Id. ¶ 22).

         On October 31, 2018, Pardo was sentenced to sixty (60) months' imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1, 016, 724.97, plus statutory interest under 18 U.S.C. section 3612. (See J. [CR ECF No. 40]). The Judgment describes how Pardo shall make payments while incarcerated and during the period of supervised release that follows. (See Id. 6). The Judgment further states such “payments do not preclude the government from using other assets or income of the defendant to satisfy the restitution obligations.” (Id.).

         On March 13, 2019 the United States recorded a Notice of Lien for Fine and/or Restitution Imposed Pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Notice of Lien) in Official Records Book 31362, Page 4209 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida to perfect the lien against Pardo's property interests. (See Compl., Ex. B [ECF No. 1-6]). At the time of recording the Restitution Lien, Pardo was and remains the owner of a parcel of real property (“Property”) in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The parcel is improved as a single-family home, located at 7281 SW 9 St, Miami, Florida, 33144, and more specifically described as follows:

Lot 2, Block 2, SUNSET HEIGHTS, according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 74, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

(See id., Ex. C [ECF No. 1-7]). The Restitution Lien is valid and attaches to and encumbers the entirety of Pardo's interest in the Property.

         Since restitution was ordered, Pardo has been credited with payments of $50.00. (See Decl. of Rolando Leon [ECF No. 41-1] ¶ 3). The balance owed is $1, 042.237.42, including accrued statutory interest. (See id.). Consequently, the Government filed this action to foreclose its criminal restitution judgment lien against the Property owned by Pardo. (See generally Compl.).

         Defendant, Caliber Home Loans, Inc., has an interest in the Property as a result of the mortgage it holds which was recorded in the public records. (See Id. ¶ 6). Defendant, Regions Bank, also has an interest in the Property as a result of the mortgage it holds which was recorded in the public records. (See Id. ¶ 7). The Government acknowledges Caliber Homes and Regions Bank have superior mortgages on the Property and they should be paid the remaining balance owed on the mortgages from the sale proceeds. (See Mot. 1).

         In opposition to the requested summary judgment, Pardo states: in her criminal case she never had the opportunity to object to the Presentence Investigation Report; and she never agreed to pay the amount listed in the restitution order, only agreeing to pay the amount listed in the Plea Agreement under a payment plan once she was released from prison. (See generally Resp.).

         II. STANDARD

         Summary judgment may only be rendered if the pleadings, discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c). An issue of fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). It is “genuine” if the evidence could lead a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. See id.; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. See Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000).

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.