United States District Court, S.D. Florida
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 to foreclose a criminal restitution
judgment lien it obtained in case number 18-cr-20504-Moreno,
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
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).
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.).
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.
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.).
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).
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
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).