Goodwin v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 11 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-15192,90-15192 |
| Citation | 935 F.2d 1061 |
| Parties | -5117, 60 USLW 2012, 91-2 USTC P 50,323 Orville R. GOODWIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Calvin E. Esselstrom; Joseph Phillips, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David M. Kirsch, San Jose, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Steven W. Parks and Kenneth L. Greene, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div., Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before CHAMBERS, BEEZER and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
Orville R. Goodwin appeals the district court's summary judgment order which upheld the government's seizure and sale of his property for delinquent payroll taxes. Goodwin contends that the seizure and sale should be set aside because the government did not literally comply with the notice requirements of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6335. He also contends that the district court erred by ruling that the statute of limitations had not expired prior to seizure of the subject property.
In 1974, Goodwin failed to pay payroll taxes amounting to $34,704.98. On July 12, 1976, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assessed those taxes, and on July 27, 1976, the IRS filed a notice of federal tax lien on Goodwin's undivided one-half interest in residential real property located at 1709 Gladstone Avenue, San Jose, California (the Gladstone property). From 1976 to 1985, Goodwin entered into various agreements with the IRS to pay the taxes in installments but failed to make any payments. He also signed four separate waiver forms which extended the statute of limitations for collecting the taxes. The last waiver expired on December 31, 1990.
On April 9, 1985, two IRS agents went to the Gladstone property and attempted to deliver a notice of levy and seizure. Goodwin was not there so they mailed the notices by certified mail. Goodwin contacted the IRS, promised to pay the taxes, but made no payments.
On June 19, 1986, the IRS mailed Goodwin a Seizure and Sale Worksheet that stated that the minimum bid price for the Gladstone property would be $32,859.37. Goodwin promised to pay the minimum bid price by July 15, 1986, but made no payment. On July 16, 1986, the IRS posted a Notice of Public Auction Sale to be held on August 5, 1986.
The sale was held, but no bidders appeared. The property was declared sold to the United States at the minimum bid price, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6335(e)(1)(C). On March 24, 1987, the District Director's Deed to the Gladstone property, which had been executed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6338(c), was filed with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office. On May 26, 1989, Goodwin filed a complaint in district court seeking an order restraining the government from selling the Gladstone property. He alleged that the seizure and sale were invalid because of defective service and because the statute of limitations on the government's right to seize the property had expired.
The district court found that the notice received by Goodwin was sufficient and refused to issue the restraining order. On September 27, 1989, the district court granted the government's summary judgment motion. The court ruled that serving the notices by certified mail satisfied the requirements of Sec. 6335 and further ruled that the statute of limitations had not run.
Goodwin did not seek a stay of the district court's rulings, and on October 10, 1989, the IRS sold the property to a third party. Goodwin timely appealed the summary judgment order, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291.
Initially we must determine whether the sale of Goodwin's property to a third party has rendered Goodwin's appeal moot. The government contends that Goodwin should have obtained an order from this court enjoining the sale of the Gladstone property pending appeal in order to preserve his rights on appeal. According to the government, once a quitclaim deed was issued to a third party pursuant 26 C.F.R. Sec. 301.7506-1, Goodwin's opportunity for appellate relief in this court was foreclosed.
Goodwin counters with the fact that he filed a Notice of Pendency of Action (lis pendens) prior to the recording of the quitclaim deed. He contends that the timely filing of the lis pendens preserved his rights to pursue this appeal.
Under California law, the timely filing of a lis pendens provides constructive notice to any subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer that a judgment in the pending action will be binding as against them. See Putnam Sand & Gravel Co. v. Albers, 14 Cal.App.3d 722, 92 Cal.Rptr. 636, 638 (1971). "A judgment favorable to the plaintiff relates to, and receives its priority from, the date the lis pendens is recorded, and is senior and prior to any interests in the property acquired after that date." Stagen v. Stewart-West Coast Title Co., 149 Cal.App.3d 114, 196 Cal.Rptr. 732, 737 (1983).
The government cites In re Onouli-Kona Land Co., 846 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir.1988) and In re The Brickyard, 735 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir.1984), as authority for its contention that the filing of a lis pendens simply provides notice of a pending action but does not substitute for obtaining a stay pending appeal. Both cases, however, are concerned with the effect a lis pendens has on a sale in bankruptcy in light of the mootness rule in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363(m).
There is no similar mootness provision in the Internal Revenue Code, and thus our analysis is limited to "whether changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief." Stevedoring Services of America v. Ancora Transport, 884 F.2d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.1989). Goodwin's action in district court requested both injunctive relief and a judgment to quiet title through a finding that the seizure and sale of the Gladstone property were invalid.
Goodwin's failure to attempt to preserve the status quo pending appeal has forestalled our ability to grant relief on his request that the district court enjoin the government from selling the Gladstone property. However, we may still determine the validity of the seizure and lien foreclosure sale through which the government obtained a District Director's Deed pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6338(c). See Kulawy v. United States, 917 F.2d 729, 733-734 (2d Cir.1990) (). This action was correctly instituted under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410(a)(1) to quiet title to the Gladstone property. We find "nothing in Sec. 2410(a)(1) that permits the government to oust the court of jurisdiction validly invoked." Id. at 734.
Goodwin and the government are before us on appeal. Goodwin filed a timely lis pendens that will render our judgment enforceable against any subsequent purchaser or encumbrancer. Goodwin's appeal of the district court's grant of summary judgment against his action to quiet title is therefore not moot.
We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment. Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3217, 110 L.Ed.2d 664 (1990). We also review de novo the district court's interpretation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6335. See Batchelor v. Oak Hill Medical Group, 870 F.2d 1446, 1447 (9th Cir.1989).
Goodwin contends that the seizure and sale of his property was invalid because the IRS failed to comply with the service requirements of Sec. 6335. The requirements in relevant part are as follows:
Sec. 6335. Sale of seized property
(a) Notice of seizure.--As soon as practicable after seizure of property, notice in writing shall be given by the Secretary to the owner of the property, ... or shall be left at his usual place of abode or business if he has such within the internal revenue district where the seizure is made. If the owner cannot be readily located, or has no dwelling or place of business within such district, the notice may be mailed to his last known address....
(b) Notice of sale.--The Secretary shall as soon as practicable after the seizure of the property give notice to the owner, in the manner prescribed in subsection (a)....
26 U.S.C. Sec. 6335 (1988).
The government concedes that under a literal reading of Sec. 6335, service by certified mail, as received by Goodwin, is defective. A literal reading requires the government to have personally served a written notice to Goodwin or to have left the written notice at Goodwin's usual place of abode. The government contends, however, that a literal reading of Sec. 6335 is not required. According to the government, Goodwin cannot demonstrate a lack of actual notice, and therefore he cannot show prejudice resulting from the de minimis noncompliance.
The Second Circuit, in Kulawy v. United States, 917 F.2d 729 (1990), recently addressed the question whether there must be strict compliance with the notice requirements of Sec. 6335. The Second Circuit held that the extraordinary powers granted to the government of levying, seizing and selling property for tax collection purposes without prior judicial hearing are dependent upon strict compliance with the procedures prescribed by statute. Id. at 734.
Although the notice provision considered by the Second Circuit in Kulawy, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6335(d), concerned notice to potential buyers rather than notice to the property owner, we find the reasoning in Kulawy persuasive on the question before us. The concern with ensuring notice to potential purchasers surely could be no greater than the concern with ensuring notice to the property owner that his property is in jeopardy.
Thus, the necessity for complying with Sec. 6335(d) could be no greater than the necessity for complying with Secs. 6335(a) and 63...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. U.S.
...to the filing of the suit, and no longer claims any interest in the property, § 2410 does not apply. See, e.g., Goodwin v. United States, 935 F.2d 1061, 1063-64 (9th Cir.1991) (taxpayer permitted to bring action to quiet title under § 2410(a)(1) even though government had already sold prope......
-
Dbsi/Tri IV Ltd. Partnership v. U.S., 04-36066.
...where necessary." Id. (quoting Nat'l Wildlife Fed. v. Espy, 45 F.3d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1995)); see also Goodwin v. United States, 935 F.2d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.1991) (rejecting mootness argument because court could "still determine the validity" of seller's acquisition of property before it......
-
Grable & Sons Metal v. Darue Engineering
...failed to "give" or "leave" notification and that therefore the service of notice did not comply with the statute. See Goodwin v. United States, 935 F.2d 1061, 1064 (1991) (noting government concession that the literal meaning of the statute requires personal service); Howard v. Adle, 538 F......
-
Village of Dimondale v. Grable
...provisions for notice of the levy, seizure, and sale. Ruff v. Isaac, 226 Mich.App. 1, 5-6, 573 N.W.2d 55 (1997); Goodwin v. United States, 935 F.2d 1061, 1065 (C.A.9, 1991). Absent literal compliance with the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6335(b), a tax sale of land is "void." Aqua Bar & Lounge, ......
-
Proposal to Amend Treasury Regulation Section 301.6303-1 to Conform to Internal Revenue Code Section 6303 and Relevant Court Decisions
...termination assessment, as required by 26 U.S. Code §6851(b), renders termination assessment void). See also Goodwin v. United States, 935 F.2d 1061 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure of the IRS to send a timely notice of sale to a taxpayer by personal delivery or by certified mail invalidates IRS sa......