when he wrote a check in the amount of $29,524.50 for the down payment on the defendant real property, no other money was deposited into the account. Id. Furthermore, the financial documents submitted by the government clearly establish that Dr. Howard’s mortgage payments were made with funds traceable to the estate’s assets and Dr. Howard has not presented evidence that refutes this evidence. Accordingly, because the Court concludes that the government has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Howard utilized funds exclusively acquired from Mildred Powell’s estate to purchase and make payments on the St. Joe, Florida property, the entire property, including its appreciated value, is subject to forfeiture. See United States v. Hawkey, 148 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Any contrary result would reward Dr. Howard
holding that actual as opposed to special damages arising from a conversion consist of the fair market value of the property converted holding that forfeiture was inequitable where purchaser hired experts to improve the property and attorneys to rezone the property which substantially increased the value holding that the measure of damages of converted property is the market value at the time of conversion holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that the district court correctly ordered that the motor home be forfeited without regard to any increased value that the defendant may have added irrespective of whether the increased value to the converted property is the result of wise investment personal effort by the defendant or by adding the defendants personal untainted funds because the converted property is traceable to the unlawful monetary transaction we conclude that the property is subject to forfeiture under 18 usc  982a1