U.S. v. Var-Ken, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | INC,No. 88-1251,VAR-KE,88-1251 |
| Citation | 875 F.2d 868 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v., d/b/a the Plymouth Rock Saloon; Janet Glover, individually and as next friend of Jill Glover, minors; Robert A. Crawford; and Elbert L. Hatchett Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before KRUPANSKY and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-appellant, United States of America (IRS), has appealed the decision of the district court in favor of defendant-appellees, 1 in this action to enforce a levy and to foreclose on funds assertedly owned by Elbert Hatchett (Hatchett). The record disclosed the following facts.
The IRS had obtained two tax deficiency judgments totalling $687,267 against Hatchett, a Michigan attorney, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (E.D.Mich.--Nos. 86-CV-72072-DT, 83-CV-5712-DT).
In January of 1984, as legal counsel for Janet Glover (Glover), Hatchett commenced a wrongful death action resulting from the death of her husband against Var-Ken, Inc., d/b/a The Plymouth Rock Saloon (Var-Ken), in the Wayne County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan, pursuant to the Dram-Shop Act. MCLA Secs. 436.22 et seq. On August 3, 1984, in an effort to satisfy part of its tax lien against Hatchett, the IRS served a notice of levy on Var-Ken, purusant to 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6331, demanding payment over to the IRS of attorneys fees which would inure to Hatchett as a result of his legal representation of Glover. On May 3, 1985, subsequent to the IRS levy against Var-Ken, Hatchett and Robert E. Crawford (Crawford), another Michigan attorney, by a stipulated order in the pending wrongful death litigation, entered Crawford's name as counsel of record for Glover replacing Hatchett and the law firm of Hatchett, Dewalt, Hatchett, and Hall as plaintiff's counsel. The case was subsequently settled in January of 1987 for $240,000, of which $80,000 was approved for attorneys fees.
On August 26, 1987, the IRS instituted the instant action, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. Secs. 7401 and 7403, against Glover, Var-Ken, Hatchett, and Crawford to enforce its lien against the $80,000 fee which Var-Ken had paid into the Wayne County Circuit Court, charging that the stipulated order between Hatchett and Crawford was a sham designed to circumvent collection of the IRS judgments outstanding against Hatchett. On September 28, 1987, the IRS diligently sought discovery by serving a notice to depose and to obtain documents from Glover. The Glover deposition scheduled for November 2, 1987 was continued at Crawford's request citing his busy schedule. On November 10, 1987, before the Glover deposition and additional discovery could be rescheduled, Crawford filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss this action wherein he asserted that Hatchett had no right or interest in the awarded attorneys fees because he had been replaced as legal counsel for Glover before the litigation had been concluded and, in the alternative, Crawford, invoked MCLA Sec. 449.25 which placed entitlement to the fees in controversy in the law firm of Hatchett, Dewalt, Hatchett, and Hall rather than Hatchett personally.
On December 21, 1987, at the conclusion of arguments, the district court granted Crawford's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case from the bench. The district court concluded that
On December 30, 1987, the IRS filed a motion to alter, amend or vacate the district court's judgment arguing that, pursuant to Rule 56(f), it had been precluded from conducting discovery proceedings to verify evidence already within its knowledge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Hatchett
...with Hatchett about a payment plan, Gibson began serving the 300 levies she had prepared. See United States v. Var-Ken, Inc., 875 F.2d 868 (6th Cir.1989) (unpublished per curiam) (reversing a summary judgment against the government in an action to enforce a levy and foreclose on funds asser......
-
Comerica Bank v. James Esshaki, Individually & of the James Esshaki Living Trust Dated April 25, 1991, D. P.C.
...case for which additional discovery is necessary. For the same reason, defendants' reliance on U.S. v. Var-Ken, Inc., 1989 WL 42913, at *3, 875 F.2d 868 (6th Cir. 1989) (table only) is misplaced as a genuine issue of material fact existed in that case as to plaintiff's fraud claims, and the......