ADDITIONAL CASES Heather Simmons, Third-Party Petitioner OPINION & ORDER Defendant Steven Simmons was sentenced by the Court after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. As part of his sentence, he was ordered to forfeit certain real property he owned together with his former wife, Heather Simmons.1 Heather has filed a petition with the Court pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §853(n), claiming that she holds rights in the property Steven was ordered to forfeit. The Government moves to dismiss Heather’s petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the reasons below, the Government’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. BACKGROUND I. Steven’s Criminal Case From approximately 2013 to 2017, Steven conspired with his co-defendant Joseph Meli and an unindicted co-conspirator to run a Ponzi-like scheme that ultimately resulted in more than thirty investors being defrauded of over $20 million dollars. (Pre-Sentence Investigation Report 37, ECF No. 110.) On October 30, 2017, Steven pled guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371. (ECF No. 90.) On April 3, 2018, this Court sentenced Steven principally to 37 months imprisonment and entered three preliminary orders of forfeiture, only one of which is relevant here. The relevant order (the “Order”) required Steven to forfeit 77 Chicken Street, Wilton, Connecticut 06897 (the “Property”). (Prelim. Or. Forfeiture, ECF No. 135.) Steven did not consent to entry of the Order. The factual basis for the forfeiture of the Property is contained in a sworn declaration by Sean Sweeney (the “Sweeney Declaration”). (See ECF No. 137, Ex. A.) Sweeney averred that on or about August 2014, Steven solicited an investment of approximately $5.95 million from a victim based upon false representations, and then diverted much of this money to himself and a co-conspirator. (Id. 6.) Sweeney further averred that Steven used a portion of the proceeds from the fraud to fund the purchase of the Property. (Id.
7-11.) II. Heather’s Petition On October 19, 2018, Heather, proceeding pro se, filed a petition asserting an interest in the Property (the “Petition”). (ECF No. 182.) Heather attached to her Petition (1) the deed to the Property; (2) an unsigned addendum to a marriage dissolution agreement (the “Addendum”); and (3) a Certificate of Dissolution of Marriage signed by the Assistant Clerk for the State of Connecticut Superior Court. (Id., Exs. 2-4.) Subsequently, the Government submitted a copy of Heather and Steven’s dissolution agreement (the “Dissolution Agreement”), which was filed with the Connecticut Superior Court, to which the Addendum was attached.2 The facts in this section are taken from the Petition and the Exhibits thereto, as well as the Dissolution Agreement. See Newman & Schwartz v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 102 F.3d 660, 662 (2d Cir. 1996) (stating that for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court may consider “facts stated in the complaint or in documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or incorporated in the complaint by reference”). Heather and Steven married in 2003 and took title to the Property in fee simple on September 30, 2014. (Pet.
