Howard v. Adle
Citation | 538 F. Supp. 504 |
Decision Date | 13 January 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 80-74444. |
Parties | Thomas HOWARD and Margaret Howard, Plaintiffs, v. Donald L. ADLE, a/k/a Dudley Adle, and United States of America, Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Alan M. Valade, Valade, MacKinnon & Higgins, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.
Leonard R. Gilman, U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., Ronald F. Fischer, Tax Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for IRS.
Charles A. Murphy, Southfield, Mich., for Adle.
This is an action seeking to set aside a federal tax sale of a parcel of real estate on the grounds that (1) the notices of seizure and sale were defective, and (2) plaintiffs properly redeemed following the sale. Defendants are the purchasers at the tax sale, Donald Adle, and the United States in the person of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 13401 and 28 U.S.C. § 2410(a).2 Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment by plaintiffs and the United States.
The following facts are uncontroverted.
In 1972 plaintiffs purchased on land contract the parcel in question: a house and lot in Redford Township, Michigan. Prior to the seizure and sale involved in this case the parcel was seized and sold in 1979 for unpaid federal income taxes; however, plaintiffs redeemed on the final day of the redemption period.
On March 26, 1980 the parcel was again seized for unpaid federal income taxes. Notice of the seizure was personally served on plaintiffs' daughter at their residence3 and mailed to plaintiff Thomas Howard's office. Notice that the property would be sold on May 22, 1980 was mailed to plaintiffs' residence and to Thomas Howard's office May 8, 1980. The May 22 sale went forward but was subsequently declared void when the high bidder failed to tender the full bid price.
Thereafter, notice of a June 16, 1980 sale date was sent by certified mail on June 3, 1980 to plaintiffs' residence and Thomas Howard's office. The notice sent to Thomas Howard's office was received June 4, 1980; however the notice to plaintiffs' residence was returned unclaimed after several attempts at delivery. Plaintiffs had actual prior notice of the June 16, 1980 sale.4 On June 16 the parcel was sold to defendant Donald L. Adle, the vendor under the land contract on the parcel.
In a letter dated September 30, 1980, the Detroit District Director of the IRS notified plaintiffs of the sale and their right to redeem. The letter contained the following statement:
The "above date" appearing at the letter's heading was October 15, 1980. On October 15 a Nick Zaika appeared at the Dearborn, Michigan IRS office and tendered a cashier's check payable to defendant Adle to redeem the parcel. On November 13, 1980 the IRS returned the check to plaintiffs with an explanation that the September 30 letter incorrectly stated that October 15, 1980 was the last day of the 120 day statutory redemption period but in fact the 120th and final day was October 14, 1980.
On November 16, 1980 the IRS executed a deed of the parcel to defendant Adle. This action was filed November 25, 1980.
The Internal Revenue Code requirements for notice of seizure and sale of property are as follows:
26 U.S.C. § 6335(a), (b).
On October 5, 1981 the Court ruled that notice of the seizure was properly given.5
No claim is made that the IRS failed to comply with the publication and posting requirements for the notice of sale. Plaintiffs' sole complaint is that the notice of the June 16, 1980 sale was neither "given" to them nor "left" at their place of abode or business.
The United States admits that it was required to provide notice of sale to plaintiffs in compliance with the first sentence of § 6335(a), but argues that the statutory language includes certified mailing. It reasons that notice of sale was left at Howard's usual place of business, albeit by a postal rather than an IRS employee. This is simply an implausible reading of the statute.
Notice must be given by "the Secretary or his delegate". The Secretary, of course, is the Secretary of the Treasury; "or his delegate" means:
"any officer, employee, or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more re-delegations of authority, to perform the function mentioned or described in the context."
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(A)(i). An employee of another executive department, such as the Post Office, does not meet the definition of "delegate".6 That Congress did not contemplate that mailing was synonymous with "giving" notice to an owner or "leaving" it at his home or business is apparent from the second sentence of § 6335(a). Where the owner cannot be readily located or has no dwelling or business in the district, the notice "may be mailed to his last known address". The United States argues that the only difference between the first and second sentence is that the latter permits mailing to "the last known address" rather than to the usual place of abode or business. Had Congress so intended, surely it would have used the word "mailed" in both sentences, rather than requiring that notice be "left" by the Secretary or his delegate in the first sentence.
The IRS itself has, by regulation, interpreted § 6335 to require delivery of the notice rather than mailing unless the owner cannot be readily located or has no place of abode or business in the district.
26 C.F.R. § 301.6335-1(b)(1) (1981). The internal operations manual of the IRS is even more specific:
Internal Revenue Manual § 5356.1(2) (1980). The United States does not claim that it attempted to serve the notice of sale personally or that plaintiffs could not be readily located within the district.
The Court's inquiry, however, does not end with the finding that notice of sale was not made in literal compliance with the statute. This is, in essence, an action to quiet title. Because plaintiffs seek equitable relief, they must show that they themselves have done equity. McAndrews v. Belknap, 141 F.2d 111, 115 (6th Cir. 1944); Johnson v. Gartlan, 470 F.2d 1104, 1106 (4th Cir. 1973). Because the parcel is located in Michigan, Michigan law applies. McAndrews, supra; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2410(c).7
The general rule in Michigan is:
"Where ... a serious defect occurs in the tax sale, it may be attacked by the owner of the premises, provided he acts promptly and does equity."
Detroit Trust Co. v. Lieberwitz, 275 Mich. 429, 436, 266 N.W. 406 (1936). See also Simasko v. Township of Harrison, 15 Mich. App. 534, 166 N.W.2d 635 (1969).
In Blondin v. Griffin, 133 Mich. 647, 95 N.W. 739 (1903), the Michigan Supreme Court declined to set aside a technically defective tax sale because of the owner's failure to act promptly on facts strikingly similar to this case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hattrup v. Deng
...the statute governing redemption of real estate following a sale, even for powerful equitable considerations."); Howard v. Adle , 538 F. Supp. 504, 508 (E.D. Mich. 1982) ("This Court simply lacks the power to extend the statutory period, even for powerful considerations."); Ballard v. Unite......
-
Brummett v. U.S.
..."[a]n employee of another executive department, such as the Post Office, does not meet the definition of `delegate.'" 538 F.Supp. 504, 507 (E.D.Mich.1982). Plaintiffs fail to present any factual support showing Congress or the secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury delegated authority......
-
Ringer v. Basile
...86 Ill.Dec. 714, 475 N.E.2d 1093 (1985) (tax sale held invalid because of the lack of personal service on the taxpayer); Howard v. Adle, 538 F.Supp. 504 (E.D. Mich.1982) (although tax sale was upheld, the court declared the tax sale would have been invalid if notice requirements had not bee......
-
Babb v. Frank
...as would be the case if courts extended the statutory time limits for redemption after they had expired. Id.; see also Howard v. Adle, 538 F.Supp. 504 (E.D.Mich.1982) (court lacks power to extend redemption period by even one day). Keely's warning not to violate explicit statutory provision......