After a bench trial, the district court again held that the Government had not shown the necessary connection between Lot 1 and the criminal activity, and entered final judgment in favor of Howerin. Both parties appeal. II. We begin with the Government’s appeal. The Government argues that Lot 1 and Lot 56 were a single piece of property, and thus the entire property should have been forfeited. We agree. The dispute in this case centers on the proper interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), which states that “[a]ll real property ... which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter” shall be subject to forfeiture. The Government contends that the word “property” in the statute should th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Howerin’s position is supported by the Second
holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that with respect to civil forfeiture actions property issues concerning ownership are governed by the laws of the state in which the property is located holding that the nature of the taxpayers legal interest in the subject property is determined by reference to state law recognizing the continued interest of a criminal defendant in frozen property prior to forfeiture