balance on the property as of October 1, 1988 was $ 29,120.03. Since the time the property was seized, the United States, through an agent, has assumed the management and control of the property, and has collected the rents due and owing. The monies collected by the United States are held in an account for the management and maintenance of the property.
Having conceded the validity and priority of Marquette's lien on the property, the United States agrees to give priority to the satisfaction of that lien, in the event of a forfeiture and sale of the property. The United States, however, has indicated that it will refuse to pay any interest or costs which have accrued subsequent to the seizure in April, 1988. Marquette has moved for summary judgment, seeking an order that it is entitled to post-seizure interest and costs from the United States in the event that the forfeiture is upheld on appeal. Marquette also seeks to compel the United States to turn over to it all the rental monies currently being held, and for an order allowing Marquette to collect all further rent. Finally, Marquette seeks to proceed with foreclosure proceedings on the property.
I. Post-Seizure Interest
In support of its position that it is not obligated to pay post-seizure interest, the United States relies on United States v. One Piece of Real Estate, Etc., 571 F. Supp. 723 (W.D. Tx. 1983), and its progeny. In One Piece, the court reasoned that requiring the United States to pay post-seizure interest to a lienholder would allow the lienholder's interest in the property to grow at the expense of the government. The Court concluded that allowing such a diminution of the government's forfeited interest would be contrary to the holding in United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 33 L. Ed. 555, 10 S. Ct. 244, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2516 (1890). The Supreme Court there held that the interest of the government is fixed as of the date of the illegal act. Therefore, the Texas District Court concluded that a lienholder is not entitled to interest or other charges that accrue after the date of seizure. Accord, United States v. A Parcel of Real Property, 650 F. Supp. 1534 (E.D. La. 1987); United States v. 8.4 Acres of Land, 648 F. Supp. 79 (D.S.C. 1986); United States v. One Condominium Apartment, 636 F. Supp. 457 (S.D. Fla. 1986); and United States v. All Interests of Severo E. Escobar, 600 F. Supp. 88 (S.D. Fla. 1984).
Marquette, however, does not come into court without its own case authorities. It cites to the only circuit court case of which we are aware, which addresses the question of whether a lienholder is entitled to collect post-seizure interest from the United States. In In Re Metmor Financial, Inc., 819 F.2d 446 (4th Cir. 1987), the court rejected the reasoning of One Piece, concluding that the court in One Piece had misconstrued Stowell In Stowell the Supreme Court had also held that:
the mortgage is valid as against the United States, and . . . so far as concerns the real estate, the judgment of condemnation must be against the equity of redemption only.