United States v. Malakie
Citation | 188 F. Supp. 592 |
Decision Date | 15 November 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 60-C-423.,60-C-423. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Evelyn Fish MALAKIE, John R. Malakie, Bay Shore Federal Savings and Loan Association, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Cornelius W. Wickersham, Jr., U. S. Atty., E. D. New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for plaintiff. Jon H. Hammer, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel.
Harry A. Kornfeld, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant John R. Malakie.
Motion by plaintiff to strike the demand for jury trial made by defendant John R. Malakie. This is an action, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.A. § 7403, to foreclose certain tax liens filed against the property of defendant Evelyn Fish Malakie arising out of income tax, fraud penalties and interest in the amount of $10,783.35, and to obtain a deficiency judgment for any tax liability remaining unpaid. The two other defendants were named parties to the action because they claim an interest in the property subject to the liens. Defendant Evelyn Malakie defaulted in her answer but the other two defendants filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint, each setting up a separate and affirmative defense.
Historically, a trial by jury in an equity case is not within the purview of the constitutional guaranties. Luria v. United States, 1913, 231 U.S. 9, 34 S.Ct. 10, 58 L.Ed. 101. Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. are not inconsistent with this conclusion since, after the promulgation of the Rules in 1938, the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity still survived for the purpose of determining the right to a jury trial. Williams v. Collier, D.C.Pa.1940, 32 F.Supp. 321; Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 137 F.2d 62, certiorari denied 320 U.S. 777, 64 S.Ct. 92, 88 L.Ed. 467; City of Morgantown, W. Va., v. Royal Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 713, 714, affirmed 1949, 337 U.S. 254, 69 S.Ct. 1067, 93 L.Ed. 1347.
An action to foreclose a mortgage has always been recognized as an equity action in which the court may award a judgment for deficiency after sale as an incident to the main relief sought. There is no right to a trial by jury in such a foreclosure proceeding in spite of the fact that money damages are asked as incidental relief. Jamaica Savings Bank v. M. S. Investing Co., Inc., 1937, 274 N.Y. 215, 8 N.E.2d 493, 112 A.L.R. 1485. The foreclosure of a tax lien is in the same category as the foreclosure of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Damsky v. Zavatt
...taxpayer's property and enforcement of the lien by sale. See 5 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1951), pp. 81, 109. United States v. Malakie, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1960, 188 F.Supp. 592. However, since the complaint discloses that only one of the liens was filed before the conveyances to Birns and Fr......
-
Gefen v. United States
...property and enforcement of the lien by sale. See 5 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1951), pp. 81, 109. United States v. Malakie, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1960, 188 F.Supp. 592." 289 F.2d at 52-53. In an equally scholarly analysis Judge Friendly upheld the right of the District Court to render a judgme......
-
United States v. Rentz
...from the equity action to foreclose a mortgage and is in equity. Damsky v. Zavatt, 289 F.2d 46 (2d Cir., 1961); United States v. Malakie, 188 F.Supp. 592 (E.D.N.Y.1960). Section 7403(c) states, "The court shall, after the parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate ......
-
United States v. LDT CORPORATION, Civ. A. No. 33285.
...United States v. Warren, 235 F.Supp. 638 (W.D.N.C. 1964); United States v. Rentz, 213 F. Supp. 521 (N.D.Iowa 1962); United States v. Malakie, 188 F.Supp. 592 (E.D. N.Y.1960). ...