Golightly v. Golightly, Civ. No. 76-0-36.
Decision Date | 19 April 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 76-0-36. |
Citation | 410 F. Supp. 861 |
Parties | Joanne Mary GOLIGHTLY, Plaintiff, v. Charles E. GOLIGHTLY, Defendant, and The United States of America, Garnishee. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska |
William L. Monahan, Omaha, Neb., for plaintiff.
Thomas Thalken, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Neb., for defendant.
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion of defendant, The United States of America, to dismiss and to be released as garnishee Filing # 5 subsequent to the submission of briefs and oral argument before the Court on April 9, 1976.
Plaintiff, Joanne Mary Golightly, filed an action for divorce against Charles E. Golightly in the District Court of Sarpy County, Nebraska, on September 4, 1968. Defendant entered an appearance and consented to a child support order in the amount of $100.00 per month. On December 27, 1968, a decree of divorce was entered.
Defendant, creditor, is presently a retired member of the United States Air Force and a domiciliary of the Philippine Islands. On February 2, 1976, garnishee, United States, removed the garnishment proceeding to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and subsequently submitted its motion to dismiss and release the United States as garnishee for the reason that the Court lacks in rem jurisdiction. Plaintiff opposes the motion upon two grounds. Initially, the plaintiff argues that there is no basis for federal jurisdiction and the case should be remanded to State court. In the alternative, plaintiff argues that Nebraska law allows the garnishment of a non-resident when there is jurisdiction over the garnishee-employer.
On January 1, 1975, Congress enacted legislation which waived the Government's immunity from garnishment proceedings for the enforcement of child support and alimony obligations of its employees.
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. § 659.1
The statute does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.
The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 14412 provides in part:
(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
The Government asserts that the original jurisdiction required by Section 1441(a) is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). This section provides in relevant part:
Plaintiff places primary reliance upon Edwards v. Edwards, 402 F.Supp. 1189 (N.D.Ga.1975), wherein the court, presented with this identical issue, held that "there is not a claim against the United States until a traverse is filed to its answer, for it is only at that point in the litigation that the government is subject to a liability which it contests footnote omitted." Id. at 1192.
The jurisdiction of a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) is concurrent with the Court of Claims when the amount in controversy is less than $10,000.00.3 Thus, whether the district courts have jurisdiction is dependent upon whether the Court of Claims could have assumed jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court held in United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Williams
...this provision would effect a profound alteration in the relationship between federal and state courts. See also Golightly v. Golightly, 410 F.Supp. 861, 862 n. 2 (D.Neb.1976). Insofar as section 1442(a)(1) is concerned, this Court respectfully In State of North Carolina v. Carr, 386 F.2d 1......
-
Loftin v. Rush
...of Air Force, 418 F.Supp. 162, 164 (S.D.Tex.1976); Popple v. United States, 416 F.Supp. 1227, 1228 (W.D.N.Y.1976); Golightly v. Golightly, 410 F.Supp. 861, 862-63 (D.Neb.1976); Morrison v. Morrison, 408 F.Supp. 315, 317-18 (N.D.Tex.1976); West v. West, 402 F.Supp. 1189, 1191-92 (N.D.Ga.1975......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...States, 416 F.Supp. 1227 (W.D.N.Y.1976); Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. United States, 414 F.Supp. 1393 (S.D.Iowa 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.......
-
Lamerand v. Lamerand, CV 79-4761-WMB.
...427 F.Supp. 557 (D.Md.1976). Cf. Wilhelm v. United States Department of Air Force, 418 F.Supp. 162 (S.D.Tex.1976); Golightly v. Golightly, 410 F.Supp. 861, 862 n.2. (D.Neb.1976); Morrison v. Morrison, 408 F.Supp. 315 (N.D.Tex.1976); West v. West, 402 F.Supp. 1189 (N.D.Ga.1975). Having held ......