`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`BEAUMONT DIVISION
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`§§§
`
`v.
`
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-171
`§
`TRACT 31A, LOTS 31 & 32, §
`LAFITTE’S LANDING PHASE TWO §
`PORT ARTHUR, JEFFERSON COUNTY §
`INCLUDING ALL BUILDINGS,
` §
`APPURTENANCES, AND §
`IMPROVEMENTS THEREON, et. al
` §
`
`
`ORDER ADOPTING
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`The court referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin for
`
`consideration of and recommended disposition on case-dispositive pretrial motions. On September
`
`3, 2015, Judge Giblin issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the
`
`court grant the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and enter its proposed judgment.
`
`Claimant Stacy Walker filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc. # 59].
`
`In her objections, Stacy Walker claims that her Answer and Verified Claim in this civil case gave
`
`the Government actual or constructive notice that her husband did not have the authority to agree
`
`to the forfeiture of the entire amount of the two annuities which were held in his name.
`
`Claimant Calvin Walker also filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Doc.
`
`# 56]. Walker alleges that he does not disavow his Plea Agreement in the criminal case. However,
`
`he adopts the objections filed by his wife Claimant Stacy Walker, without any explanation of why
`
`this does not violate the express terms of his Plea Agreement.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) the court has conducted a de novo review of the Magistrate
`
`Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the record, the plaintiff’s objections, and the applicable law
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00171-RC-KFG Document 62 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 496
`
`in this proceeding. The summary judgment evidence establishes that Mr. Walker is the sole owner
`
`of the annuities and that Mrs. Walker is listed only as a beneficiary. The terms of the annuities allow
`
`Mr. Walker to assign, surrender, change ownership of, and change beneficiaries without the consent
`
`of any beneficiary. Under Texas law, the Government was entitled to rely on the legal presumption
`
`that Mr. Walker was authorized to forfeit the annuities as part of a plea bargain that saved him from
`
`the threat of a long prison term. See TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN. § 3.104.
`
`Factual Background
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The comprehensive Report and Recommendation details the sequence of events and the
`
`procedural background. [Doc. # 55]. The following time line, which summarizes certain written and
`
`oral representations made by Calvin and Stacy Walker, is helpful in analyzing this matter:
`
`5/04/2011:
`
`7/28/2011:
`
`12/13/11:
`
`Calvin Walker, an electrical contractor was indicted on 36 counts of mail
`fraud, wire fraud, interstate transportation of funds by fraud, fraud upon
`programs receiving federal funds, and money laundering. United States v.
`Walker, No. 1:11-CR-67, Doc. #2. The Government generally alleged that
`Mr. Walker used false and fraudulent invoices submitted in connection with
`electrical work to defraud the Beaumont Independent School District of
`approximately $3,700,000. The Government seized the property at issue in
`this civil case.
`
`In the criminal proceeding, during the Hearing on Defendant’s Motion for
`Return of Property, Mr. DeGuerin stated that the money that the Government
`seized “belonged to Mr. Walker.”
`
`During Calvin Walker’s criminal trial, Mrs. Walker referred to Mr. DeGuerin
`as her attorney and her husband’s attorney, and likewise, Mr. DeGuerin
`referred to himself as Mrs. Walker’s attorney. In Mr. DeGuerin’s closing
`argument, Mr. DeGuerin stated, “I’m doing my job, for Calvin and for Stacy
`Walker and their family.”
`
`4/10/12:
`
`The Government filed a civil forfeiture action against Calvin and Stacy
`Walker. Mr. DeGuerin represented both Mr. and Mrs. Walker at this time.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00171-RC-KFG Document 62 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 497
`
`6/7/12:
`
`6/27/12:
`
`7/17/12:
`
`4/2/14:
`
`4/3/14:
`
`In the civil forfeiture action, Calvin and Stacy Walker filed a Verified Claim
`as “true owners” of the two annuities, among other property. Mr. DeGuerin
`represented both Calvin and Stacy Walker at this time.
`
`In the civil forfeiture action, Calvin and Stacy Walker filed a counterclaim
`against the Government for return of the annuities, among other property.
`Mr. DeGuerin represented both Calvin and Stacy Walker at this time.
`
`In the criminal proceeding, Mr. Walker entered an 11(c)(1)(C) Plea
`Agreement, agreeing to a term of probation and to restitution of taxes,
`penalties, and interest for tax years 2008 - 2010 to “be accomplished by the
`payment directly to the Internal Revenue Service from the proceeds of the
`liquidation of any annuity currently held under seizure warrant in this
`matter.” United States v. Calvin Gary Walker, Crim No. 1:11-CR-67, Doc.
`#158, at 4.
`
`Mr. Walker also agreed to enter into an Order of Forfeiture in this civil
`forfeiture proceeding, agreeing to forfeit voluntarily and immediately all of
`his rights, title, and interest to the two annuities, to fully assist the
`Government in forfeiture of the annuities, to take any steps necessary to
`ensure that the annuities were not made unavailable for forfeiture, to not file
`a claim and to withdraw any filed claim regarding the annuities, and to not
`assist others in filing a claim for the annuities. Id.
`
`On that same day, at the Plea Hearing, Mr. Walker represented to the court
`that he “completely” understood everything set forth in the Plea Agreement,
`and that he agreed “with each and every term” of the Agreement. Mr.
`DeGuerin represented both Calvin and Stacy Walker at this time.
`
`Allegedly, Mrs. Walker informed her then attorney, Mr. DeGuerin, for the
`first time, that she would not consent to an entry of judgment in this civil
`forfeiture action that would divest her of her alleged interest in the annuities.
`At this point, Mr. DeGuerin told Stacy Walker that she needed to find new
`counsel because her position created a conflict of interest.
`
`In this civil forfeiture action, Mr. and Mrs. Walker, through Mr. DeGuerin,
`filed a Motion to Stay Entry of Judgment to Address Conflicted
`Representation.
`
`Review of Objections to the Report and Recommendation
`
`Judge Giblin’s analysis is correct. Section 3.104 of the Texas Family Code applies in this
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00171-RC-KFG Document 62 Filed 12/01/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 498
`
`case. Because the two annuities were held in Calvin Walker’s name, they were presumed to be
`
`subject to his sole management and control and could be forfeited to the Government as part of a
`
`plea agreement unless the Government had actual or constructive notice of Calvin Walker’s lack of
`
`authority.
`
` It is true that both spouses filed claims and answers in the civil case prior to the execution
`
`of the Plea Agreement. But nothing filed in the case gave the Government notice that Calvin Walker
`
`lacked the authority to subsequently agree to the forfeiture of the entire amount of the annuities
`
`which were held solely in his name. For example, nothing filed by Mrs. Walker hinted that the
`
`terms of the annuities giving sole control over their disposition to Mr. Walker had been amended.
`
`The representations set out in the timeline above establish that Mr. and Mrs. Walker were
`
`undisputably represented by the same attorney, Mr. DeGuerin, both when he signed the Plea
`
`Agreement at which he agreed to the forfeiture of the annuities with the money going to pay the tax
`
`liability and at the Plea Hearing, at which Mr. Walker, in the presence of Mr. DeGuerin, confirmed
`
`his understanding of that agreement. Mrs. Walker was present in court throughout the criminal trial
`
`and at almost every, if not every, hearing. Yet, it was not until April 2, 2014, a year and a half after
`
`her husband’s pleas were accepted and he was sentenced to probation, that Stacy Walker first
`
`alleged that she had never told even her own lawyer that she believed her husband had no authority
`
`to forfeit the full value of the annuities.
`
` “Under our system of representative litigation, each party is deemed bound by the acts of
`
`his lawyer-agent and is considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon
`
`the attorney.” Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 91 (1990) (internal quotations
`
`omitted). Similarly, under that same system of representative litigation, clients cannot absolve
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00171-RC-KFG Document 62 Filed 12/01/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 499
`
`themselves of responsibility for their own bad acts by blaming their attorney. See, e.g., Estel v.
`
`Bigelow Mgmt., Inc., 323 B.R. 918, 924 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (“Plaintiff admitted that both he and his
`
`bankruptcy attorney knew about his claims against these defendants when he filed for bankruptcy
`
`[and] failed to include the claims on Plaintiff’s schedule of assets. By blaming his attorney, Plaintiff
`
`does not absolve himself from responsibility or from the consequences of such failure. ‘The clients
`
`are principals, the attorney is an agent, and under the law of agency the principal is bound by his
`
`chosen agent’s deeds.’”) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. 7108 W. Grand Ave.,
`
`Chicago, Ill., 15 F.3d 632, 634 (7th Cir. 1994)).
`
`Mr. DeGuerin certainly had notice of the contents of the Plea Agreement. He signed it as
`
`attorney. He was present at the plea colloquy. Having been present throughout the proceedings, and
`
`being charged under the law with notice of all facts known to her attorney, Mrs. Walker can not be
`
`heard to claim eighteen months later that her husband had no authority to agree to the forfeiture.
`
`She was bound to have brought this to the attention of the Government or her lawyer.1
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`After review, the court finds that Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendations should be
`
`accepted. The court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 55] is ADOPTED
`
`and the claimants’ objections [Doc.## 56 & 59] are OVERRULED. The court further ORDERS
`
`1 The court need not consider at this time the impact of Mr. Walker’s apparent violation
`of his 11(c)(1)(C) Agreement, or whether Mrs. Walker would have faced civil or criminal
`liability for unpaid taxes due on funds used to acquire the annuities, had the court sustained her
`objections.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00171-RC-KFG Document 62 Filed 12/01/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 500
`
`that he Government's Motion for Summary Judgement [Doc.# 51] is GRANTED. The Court will
`
`enter final judgment separately.
`
`6