Coughlin v. Regan, 84-2015

Decision Date25 July 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-2015,84-2015
Citation768 F.2d 468
Parties-5598, 85-2 USTC P 9667 Richard COUGHLIN, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Donald REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Defendants, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Frederick B. Stocking, Machias, Me., with whom Hugh H. Calkins, Dover-Foxcroft, Me., and Pine Tree Legal Assistance, Inc., Machias, Me., were on brief for appellants.

Diane E. Doyen, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom Raymond E. Ritchie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Health and Human Services, with whom James E. Tierney, Atty. Gen., were on brief for appellee Michael Petit.

Richard Farber, Washington, D.C., with whom Michael L. Paup, Lisa A. Prager, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C. and Richard S. Cohen, U.S. Atty., Portland, Me., were on brief for the U.S.

Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, BOWNES and BREYER, Circuit Judges.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Richard Coughlin appeals from a consent judgment entered in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The judgment dismissed a class action Coughlin had brought for refund of Earned Income Credits (EIC's) intercepted by the federal Secretary of the Treasury, and paid over to the Maine Commissioner of Human Services, in satisfaction of child support debts, as well as claims for declaratory and injunctive relief 1. Because the judgement was entered with the consent of the parties, we affirm without reaching the merits 2.

For the taxable year 1981, Coughlin and his wife were entitled to a federal tax refund of $664.94, representing the refund of $176.94 in withheld wages plus an EIC refund of $488. On March 26, 1982, the IRS notified Coughlin and his wife that their refund had, pursuant to I.R.C. Sec. 6402, been paid over to the State of Maine to satisfy an indebtedness to Maine which Coughlin incurred by defaulting on his child support obligations 3. After filing an amended return listing her tax information separately, Coughlin's wife received a check for her withheld wages and her share of the couple's total EIC.

In January, 1983, Coughlin and his wife instituted the present class action as representatives of persons similarly situated. On April 9, 1984, the district court certified the following two subclasses represented by Coughlin and his wife: (1) all Maine residents otherwise entitled to a federal tax refund, representing in part an EIC refund, that had been intercepted to satisfy a past-due child support debt (hereinafter the "obligated spouse"); and (2) spouses of members of the first class who filed joint tax returns, who should have been entitled to a federal tax refund representing in part an EIC refund had they filed separate returns, and whose EIC refunds were intercepted along with their spouses' (hereinafter the "nonobligated spouse"). Their complaint alleged that interception of the nonobligated spouses' portion of the refund and interception of the obligated spouses' EIC refunds were illegal. As relief, the class sought declaratory and injunctive relief and a refund of the obligated spouses' portion of the EIC for the taxable year 1981.

On April 11, treating defendants' motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, the court, 584 F.Supp. 697, allowed it as to the claims of the obligated spouse subclass, holding that the EIC refunds fell within the language of I.R.C. Sec. 6402(c) authorizing the interception of "overpayments." The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the claim of the nonobligated spouse subclass, holding that the complaint raised a serious question as to whether the lack of notice given to nonobligated spouses prior to the interception of their portion of the refund denied them due process. Guided by the court's decision, the parties arrived at a form of notice acceptable to each. The attorneys then signed a Stipulation filed with the court that provides: "It is hereby stipulated and agreed by the undersigned attorneys for the parties that the Court may enter the attached Judgment and Order." The attached Judgment and Order, dated September 14, 1984, denies the claims of the obligated spouse subclass and provides for the form of notice to be sent to nonobligated spouses in future years.

On November 9, 1984, the federal defendant filed a notice of appeal; that appeal was dismissed by stipulation on 1/14/85. On November 20, 1984, plaintiffs brought the present appeal, originally as a cross-appeal, from all but the last part of the judgment.

It is uncontested that a party to a consent judgment is thereby deemed to waive any objections it has to matters within the scope of the judgment. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. United States, 113 U.S. 261, 266, 5 S.Ct. 460, 462, 28 L.Ed. 971 (1885), cited with approval in NLRB v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Mock v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 24 Julio 1992
    ...to a consent judgment is thereby deemed to waive any objections it has to matters within the scope of the judgment." Coughlin v. Regan, 768 F.2d 468, 469-70 (1st Cir.1985); see also Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry. v. United States, 113 U.S. 261, 5 S.Ct. 460, 28 L.Ed. 971 (1885), cite......
  • Laubinger v. Department of Revenue
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • 14 Noviembre 1996
    ...574 F.Supp. 586, 591, 595-600 (D.R.I.1983); Coughlin v. Regan, 584 F.Supp. 697, 707-711 (D.Me.1984), aff'd, on other grounds, 768 F.2d 468 (1st Cir.1985). See McClelland v. Massinga, 786 F.2d 1205, 1210 (4th Cir.1986). But see Rucker v. Secretary of the Treasury, 634 F.Supp. 598, 601-604 (D......
  • Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 20 Diciembre 2018
    ...preserve his right to appeal, he must reserve that right unequivocally, as it will not be presumed." Id. (quoting Coughlin v. Regan , 768 F.2d 468, 470 (1st Cir. 1985) ).b. The Status of Raceway in Light of MicrosoftDefendants point out that Raceway and accompanying circuit precedent must b......
  • Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 3 Marzo 2017
    ...Deceived v. Local S6, Indus. Union of Marine & Shipbldg. Workers of Am. , 132 F.3d 824, 828 (1st Cir. 1997) (quoting Coughlin v. Regan , 768 F.2d 468, 470 (1st Cir. 1985) ). Here, the joint motion for entry of final judgment unequivocally reserved the parties' rights to appeal. To begin, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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