Com. of Pa. v. Petito

Decision Date17 September 1979
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 79-1970.
Citation476 F. Supp. 384
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA v. Annette PETITO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Antoinette Serritella, Asst. U.S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

W. Hamlin Neely, Allentown, Pa., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TROUTMAN, District Judge.

During a November 1974 drug raid the Pennsylvania State Police, executing a search warrant, searched premises leased to and occupied by defendant and seized almost three thousand dollars in United States currency. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) thereafter issued a levy on the money, which police records designated as the property of one Phillip Arthur Snyder. Defendant, claiming that the funds belonged to her, not Snyder, petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County for return of the money. The court issued a Rule directing the District Attorney of Lehigh County, Snyder and the United States Treasury Department to show cause why the money should not be returned to defendant. One day after service of the Rule the IRS filed a petition for removal to this Court. Defendant now moves to remand so that the state court may determine the rightful ownership of the seized property.

IRS predicates removal on the tandem operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1444 and 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a)(1), which provide, respectively, that

(a)ny action brought under section 2410 of this title against the United States in any State court may be removed by the United States to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the action is pending.
Under the conditions prescribed in this section and section 1444 of this title for the protection of the United States, the United States may be named a party in any civil action or suit in any district court, or in any State court having jurisdiction of the subject matter to quiet title to . . . real or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage or other lien.

Although defendant does not specifically seek to quiet title to the property, the clear intention of her petition to the Court of Common Pleas is to remove the cloud of the IRS levy from her alleged title. In Hudson County Board v. Morales, 581 F.2d 379 (3d Cir. 1978), police seized from defendant's car a substantial amount of cash upon which the IRS issued a levy to satisfy federal income taxes claimed from defendant. The County then filed a complaint seeking to declare the levy invalid. Acting for the IRS, the United States Attorney filed a petition for removal to federal court, which assumed jurisdiction. Affirming, the Third Circuit explained that

the complaint . . . explicitly challenge(s) the validity of the government's tax lien, and thus impinges directly on an interest of the United States in the property in question — which is the sort of situation that § 2410 was designed to reach.

Id. at 384. See also Aqua Bar & Lounge v. United States Department of Treasury, 539 F.2d 935 (3d Cir. 1976). In the case at bar defendant denies a direct attack upon the federal lien,1 but admits that "the validity of the Federal lien may well depend upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Murray v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • September 4, 1981
    ...(3rd Cir. 1978) (IRS tax lien challenged); Viva Ltd. v. United States, 490 F.Supp. 1002 (D.Colo.1980) (same); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Petito, 476 F.Supp. 384 (E.D.Pa.1979) (same); Bartell v. Riddell, 202 F.Supp. 70 (S.D.Cal.1962) (property sold twice by IRS but not yet conveyed); co......
  • Bartolacci v. CORP. OF PRESIDING BISHOP, ETC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 17, 1979
  • DeRewal v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 30, 1983
    ...in question — which is the sort of situation that § 2410 was designed to reach. 581 F.2d at 384. See also, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Petito, 476 F.Supp. 384 (E.D.Pa.1979). In this case, the plaintiffs request that the Government be ordered to cease and desist from asserting any owners......
  • John Doe v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 14, 2015
    ...will be largely irrelevant to defendant's alleged liability, and will become relevant only if plaintiff is successful at trial." 476 F.Supp. at 384. Additionally, "consideration of witnesses' convenience depends on the number of critical witnesses and the relative weight of the issue of lia......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT