Bolling v. Howland, 75-144-NA-CV
Decision Date | 29 July 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 75-144-NA-CV,75-236-NA-CV.,75-144-NA-CV |
Citation | 398 F. Supp. 1313 |
Parties | Elma Marie BOLLING v. James Thomas HOWLAND, Jr., and the United States of America as Garnishee. Naomi West SCHMITZ v. Francis E. SCHMITZ, and the United States of America as Garnishee. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Kemper & Vance, Nashville, Tenn., for Elma Marie Bolling.
Rodger N. Bowman, Clarksville, Tenn., for Naomi West Schmitz.
Charles H. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for the United States.
The above styled cases are consolidated for consideration by the court, sua sponte, of the jurisdictional basis for a suit in the Federal district court for garnishment of wages or other remuneration for employment pursuant to 42 U. S.C. § 659. In both of these cases, the plaintiff seeks to enforce the individual defendant's child support obligations.
Heretofore, the sovereign immunity of the United States has served as a shield for government employees in actions of this type. However, the Social Services Amendments of 1974 included a provision expressly waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States in suits seeking garnishment of wages for the purpose of enforcing child support and alimony obligations of government employees. The provision in question provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, effective January 1, 1975, moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employment) due from, or payable by, the United States (including any agency or instrumentality thereof and any wholly owned Federal corporation) to any individual, including members of the armed services, shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States were a private person, to legal process brought for the enforcement, against such individual of his legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments. 42 U.S.C.A. § 659.
The issue raised by the court is whether 42 U.S.C. § 659, or any other provision of the United States Code, vests jurisdiction in the Federal district courts for suits to enforce support obligations. Since the certification requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 660 has not been met in either of these cases, the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction and the above styled cases must be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.
The language of 42 U.S.C. § 659 provides that the sovereign immunity of the United States is waived as to garnishment of wages or other remuneration of employment in certain limited cases. It is further provided that in those limited cases the United States shall stand as any private employer and be subject to legal process. The words are not qualified beyond the limitation that the garnishment be for the purpose of enforcing child support and alimony obligations. Section 659 contains no express language vesting jurisdiction in the Federal courts and this court finds no language that would support such an inference.
Those portions of the Social Services Amendments of 1974 that concern child support obligations consistently place the power and responsibility with the several states for collecting adjudicated support obligations from deserting parents. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is assigned various administrative responsibilities, as well as means to foster cooperation among the various States, in an effort to enhance collection of support obligations and thereby reduce the demands placed upon welfare agencies. It is consistent with the general format of the collection program, contained in the Social Services Amendments of 1974, to require actions such as these to proceed in the State courts.
The intent of Congress to place primary responsibility for collection of child support obligations on the States is further illustrated by 42 U.S.C. § 660, which provides:
The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, without regard to any amount in controversy, to hear and determine any civil action certified by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under section 652(a) (8) of this title. A civil action under this section may be brought in any judicial district in which the claim arose, the plaintiff resides, or the defendant resides. (emphasis added)
42 U.S.C. § 652(a)(8) provides that:
The inclusion of these provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and the absence of an express jurisdictional grant under 42 U.S.C. § 659, illustrate the limited power vested in this court by the Congress.
The legislative history of the Social Services Amendments of 1974 further indicates that Congress did not intend to include a jurisdictional grant of power to the Federal courts by waiver of sovereign immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 659. The legislation in question originated in the House of Representatives (H.R. 17045). After the bill reached the Senate, the Committee on Finance reported with an amendment to strike the substance of the House bill and substitute the provisions of H.R. 3153, which had passed the Senate in 1973 without being acted upon by the House. 120 Cong.Rec. S 217312 (daily ed. Dec. 17, 1974). Senator Long was the floor manager for the bill reported by the Committee on Finance and he described the proposed bill, in pertinent part, as follows:
Following passage of the amended bill by the Senate, it was referred to an Conference Committee and shortly thereafter was reported to the House of Representatives where the bill was debated on December 20, 1974. Congressman Ullman outlined the history of the bill and the changes from the original version which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Williams
...section 1442(a)(1) when section 659 is involved. Once again, most respectfully, this Court disagrees. The opinion in Bolling v. Howland, 398 F.Supp. 1313 (M.D.Tenn.1975) involves two cases "consolidated for consideration by the Court, sua sponte, of the jurisdictional basis for a suit in th......
-
Morton v. U.S.
...408 F.Supp. 315 (N.D.Tex.1976); West v. West, 402 F.Supp. 1189 (N. D.Ga.1975); Bolling v. Howland, 1189 (N.D.Ga.1975); Bolling Howland, 398 F.Supp. 1313 (M.D.Tenn.1975). 1 Entered October 8, 1982, pursuant to this court's order of October 4, 1982, and corresponding to the decision recommend......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...1976); Golightly v. Golightly, 410 F.Supp. 861 (D.Neb.1976); Morrison v. Morrison, 408 F.Supp. 315 (N.D.Tex.1976); Bolling v. Howland, 398 F.Supp. 1313 (M.D.Tenn.1975); Elmwood v. Elmwood, 295 N.C. 168, 244 S.E.2d 668 (1978). The point of contention here is, rather, whether Edgar's obligati......
-
Millard v. U.S.
...payable from the United States to an employee were not available for garnishment or similar legal process. See, e.g., Bolling v. Howland, 398 F.Supp. 1313 (M.D.Tenn.1975). In 1974, Congress gave consent to proceedings in the nature of garnishment against the United States but only for enfor......