Divorce contests Mann’s cash

Bombing victim, ex-wife must split it, lawyer argues

Arkansas law concerning the division of marital property - or all property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage - is well-established and prevents the federal government from taking all of Randeep Mann’s benefits from a disability-insurance policy to apply to his restitution in a criminal case, his wife’s attorney argued Monday.

Mann, 58, a former Russellville physician, is serving a life sentence for orchestrating a February 2009 grenade attack in West Memphis that severely injured the chairman of the state Medical Board.

Mann’s wife, Sangeeta “Sue” Mann, who is serving a one-year sentence for interfering in the federal investigation of her husband, is seeking a divorce. Her attorney, Jeff Rosenzweig, asserted in a court filing that she is entitled to half of the $413, 259 he has received through the policy and half of any future payments.

Rosenzweig was responding to a motion that federalprosecutors filed April 2 seeking those proceeds and any future disability payments that Mann receives monthly for advanced osteoarthritis in his left shoulder. The prosecutors contend that the funds should be applied to the $1,105,281 in restitution he owes Dr. Trent Pierce, the victim, and three insurance companies that paid Pierce’s medical bills after the explosion.

Randeep Mann is scheduled for a resentencing hearing Wednesday at the order of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Brian S. Miller, improperly calculated his penalty range. The resentencing could result in Mann’s life sentence being changed to a term of years, but it isn’t expected to affect restitution.

On the restitution question, Rosenzweig said that despite legal justifications cited by prosecutors seeking all the money from the disability policy to apply to the restitution, “The government’s theory is based on inapposite cases and a misreading of the applicable law and mistakenly mixes substantive rights and procedural avenues.”

Rosenzweig cited a 2011 Arkansas Court of Appeals case overturning a lower court decision that a hunting club membership purchased during the marriage was the husband’s separate property. The Court of Appeals said, “All property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage is considered marital property except for several specific statutory exceptions, including property acquired by gift or by reason of the death of another and property acquired in exchange for other nonmarital property.”

Rosenzweig wrote that the Court of Appeals has even “explicitly held that the proceeds from a disability policy such as this are marital property.”

He also took issue with the government’s claim that a federal restitution requirement defeats a marital interest, citing a 2008 case heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Rosenzweig said the case in question, United States v. Seymour, holds that “federal restitution requirements defeat marital rights under Mississippi law.”

In that case, Rosenzweig said, “the court found that Mississippi marital property rights do not vest prior to a dissolution. Arkansas law is explicitly to the contrary.”

He cited a 1986 Arkansas Supreme Court ruling stating that a third person can obtain a judgment against a husband or wife that will be a lien against the debtor’s interest in the land, but “that claim cannot … defeat the interest of the other spouse.”

While federal prosecutors contend that the insurance policy belongs to Randeep Mann alone, because only his name is on the policy, Rosenzweig said a 1994 case on which the government bases that assertion “did not involve marital property, but rather a parent-child joint tenancy.”

He also argued that the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act prohibits the taking of Sangeeta Mann’s share of co-owned property. He quoted Section 3010 of the act, which states, “The remedies available to the United States under this chapter may be enforced against property which is co-owned … only to the extent allowed by the law of the state where the property is located.”

Since Arkansas law establishes that Sangeeta Mann’s interest, as an innocent spouse, “cannot be reached by a creditor,” the federal debt collection act cannot be used to take her share, he argued.

The matter is pending before Miller.

Northwest Arkansas, Pages 7 on 04/30/2013

Upcoming Events