United States v. Security Trust Savings Bank of San Diego, Nos. 10
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MINTON |
| Citation | 340 U.S. 47,71 S.Ct. 111,95 L.Ed. 53 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF SAN DIEGO et al |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | 11,Nos. 10,12 and 13 |
v.
SECURITY TRUST & SAVINGS BANK OF SAN DIEGO et al.
Helen Goodner, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Submitted on the record by respondents.
Page 48
Mr. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented here is whether a tax lien of the United States is prior in right to an attachment lien where the federal tax lien was recorded subsequent to the date of the attachment lien but prior to the date the attaching creditor obtained judgment.
On October 17, 1946, Wilton M. Morrison sued George and Genell Styliano on an unsecured note. Pursuant to § 537 and 542 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,1 Morrison procured the attachment of four parcels of real estate owned by the Stylianos in San Diego County. On April 24, 1947, Morrison obtained judgment and it was recorded in the office of the Recorder of San Diego County on May 2, 1947. Meanwhile, on December 3, 5, and 10, 1946, the United States had filed notices of federal tax liens in the same office.2
Subsequently, four suits were brought in the Superior Court of San Diego County involving the four parcels of land upon which Morrison had procured the attachment. Morrison and the United States were made parties defendant in each of these suits. The first suit was brought to quiet title to one of the parcels of real estate. The Stylianos had sold this parcel to the plaintiffs of the suit, who paid the balance of the purchase price into court. The other three suits were to foreclose separate mortgages on the other three parcels. The Superior Court ordered the balance of the purchase price and any surplus
Page 49
remaining from the foreclosure sales after the mortgagees received payment in full to be applied first in payment of Morrison's judgment lien, and secondly in payment of any federal tax liens.3
The District Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District affirmed. Winther v. Morrison, 93 Cal.App.2d 608, 209 P.2d 657. The Supreme Court of California declined to hear the case, and we granted certiorari. 339 U.S. 947, 70 S.Ct. 801.4 The four cases were consolidated below for purposes of appeal, and Morrison's claims of priority were treated as a single issue. They are treated here in the same manner.
Section 537 of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff may have the property of the defendant attached at any time 'as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered'. Section 542a provides: 'The lien of the attachment on real property attaches and becomes effective upon the recording of a copy of the writ, together with a description of the property attached, and a notice that it is attached with the county recorder of the county wherein said real property is situated * * *. The attachment whether heretofore levied or hereafter to be levied shall be a lien upon all real property attached for a period of three years after the date of levy unless sooner released or discharged either as provided in this chapter, or by dismissal of the action, or by the recording with the recorder of an abstract of the judgment in the action.'
The effect of a lien in relation to a provision of federal law for the collection of debts owing the United States is always a federal question. Hence, although a state court's classification of a lien as specific and perfected is
Page 50
entitled to weight, it is subject to reexamination by this Court. On the other hand, if the state court itself describes the lien as inchoate, this classification is 'practically conclusive.' People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Campbell, 329 U.S. 362, 371, 67 S.Ct. 340, 345, 91 L.Ed. 348. The Supreme Court of California has so described its attachment lien in the case of Puissegur v. Yarbrough, 29 Cal.2d 409, 412, 175 P.2d 830, 831, by stating that, 'The attaching creditor obtains only a potential right or a contingent lien * * *.' Examination of the California statute shows that the above is an apt description. The attachment lien gives the attachment creditor no right to proceed against the property unless he gests judgment within three years or within such extension as the statute provides. Numerous contingencies might arise the would prevent the attachment lien from ever becoming perfected by a judgment awarded and recorded. Thus the attachment lien...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of New Jersey v. Moriarity, Civ. A. No. 262-64.
...competing State lien is adequately perfected, is an independent question of Federal law. United States v. Security Trust and Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 Nor was the fact that forfeiture involved the State's governmental powers, rather than a private individual's cla......
-
In re Berretta's Estate
...States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U.S. 361, 73 S.Ct. 701, 97 L.Ed. 1071 (1953). United States v. Security Trust and Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 (1950). It is obvious that if the Pennsylvania Courts which decided Meyer Estate, supra, and Decker Estate, supra, i......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Sanders, s. 77-1775
...441 U.S. 471, 476-77, 99 S.Ct. 1831, 1836, 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979); a federal agency, United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 (1950); or a federal contract, United States v. Allegheny, 332 U.S. 174, 64 S.Ct. 908, 88 L.Ed. 1209 In a world in which......
-
United States v. State of Vermont, 272
...one that bears copious writing by the Supreme Court. This begins, for present purposes, with United States v. Security Trust & Savs. Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 (1950) — a case in which, as has been pointed out, the Court was "without benefit of a brief for the respondent."......
-
Claremont Terrace Homeowners' Assn. v. U.S.
...over both the assessment and appellant's recorded tax lien. Relying primarily upon United States v. Security Trust & Sav. Bk. (1950) 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53, appellant contends that the relation-back doctrine is inapplicable. In that case, however, we note the important disti......
-
Dunn & Black, P.S. v. U.S., CV-04-0229-LRS.
...that there be no contingencies standing in the way of execution of the lien. See Security U.S. v. Security Trust & Sav. Bank of San Diego, 340 U.S. 47, 50, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 (1950). In Security Trust, an attachment lien, even though filed, was contingent upon the outcome of an under......
-
U.S. v. Berk, Civ.A. No. 06-11457-DPW.
...question." Middlesex Say. Bank v. Johnson, 777 F.Supp. 1024, 1027 (D.Mass.1991) (citing United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 49, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53 (1950)). Priority for the purposes of federal law is governed by the rule of "first in time, first in right." Mi......
-
National Sur. Corp. v. Sharpe, 604
...given protection by the subsequently enacted statute mentioned in the next paragraph. United States v. Security Trust & Savings Bank, 340 U.S. 47, 71 S.Ct. 111, 95 L.Ed. 53; United States v. Snyder, 149 U.S. 210, 13 S.Ct. 846, 37 L.Ed. 705; United States v. Barndollar & Crosbie, 10 Cir., 16......