US v. Feinstein

Decision Date15 August 1989
Docket NumberNo. 87-916-CIV.,87-916-CIV.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jack FEINSTEIN, Mark Feinstein, Reuben Klugman, Mildred Klugman, and The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company, a Canadian Corporation, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

Jay L. Pritts, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., U.S. Attys. Office, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.

Warren R. Trazenfeld, Miami, Fla., for Feinstein and Klugman.

Brian Hal Leslie, Miami, Fla., for Mfrs. Life.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SPELLMAN, District Judge.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the Defendants, JACK FEINSTEIN, MARK FEINSTEIN, REUBEN KLUGMAN, MILDRED KLUGMAN, and THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Canadian Corporation. Plaintiff, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and therein requests that this Court enter summary judgment in its favor and (1) determine that the United States holds valid tax liens on the real property at issue, the buildings and improvements thereon; (2) order the foreclosure of the federal tax liens upon the property at issue; (3) direct the sale of the property in accordance with law; and (4) distribute the proceeds of the sale in accordance with the Court's findings.

Defendants have filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and therein request that this Court determine as a matter of law that the system for the public indexing of Federal Tax Liens, as maintained by Dade County, Florida, is not "adequate", as required by Section 6323(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, in circumstances where the taxpayer's name is misspelled on the lien.

Upon review of the Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the parties, it is the opinion of this Court that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It is further the opinion of this Court that Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied on both substantive and procedural grounds.

Facts

1. Hyde, Tarragon & Co. was a corporation incorporated in Florida in 1974.

2. By warranty deed dated March 15, 1979, Silco, Inc. conveyed to Hyde, Tarragon & Co. the real property described as follows:

Lots 18 and 19 of ARCH CREEK, a subdivision of the east ½ of the northeast ¼ of the southwest ¼ of Section 29, Township 52 south, Range 42 east, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book B, at Page 121 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida; less the west 25 feet of Lots 18 and 19 and that portion of said Lot 19, lying external to a 25.00 foot radius are concave to the northeast, tangent to a line 25.00 feet east of and parallel to the west line of said Lot 19 and tangent to the south line of said Lot 19.

3. A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury timely made the following assessment against taxpayer, Hyde, Tarragon & Co. for unpaid federal employment taxes, penalties, and interest and gave notice and demand for payment thereof as set forth in the following schedule. These amounts do not include interest as allowed by law.

                                             DATE OF
                TYPE OF      TAXABLE         ASSESSMENT,       ASSESSED
                    TAX       PERIOD    NOTICE AND DEMAND       AMOUNT
                  WH/FICA    1st Qtr.       11/02/81         $16,688.28(1)
                               1981                            1,020.50(2)
                                                               2,503.24(3)
                                                                 834.41(4)
                                                                 333.77(5)
                
                                             DATE OF
                  TYPE OF    TAXABLE       ASSESSMENT,          ASSESSED
                    TAX      PERIOD     NOTICE AND DEMAND        AMOUNT
                  WH/FICA    2nd Qtr.        09/07/81        $18,034.49(1)
                               1981                              225.31(2)
                                                                 901.72(4)
                                                                 180.34(5)
                  WH/FICA    3rd Qtr.        12/07/81        $18,474.41(1)
                               1981                              224.73(2)
                                                                 923.72(4)
                                                                 184.74(5)
                                                             _____________
                                                    TOTAL    $60,529.72
                (1) Tax
                (2) Interest
                (3) Delinquency Penalty
                (4) Failure to Deposit Penalty
                (5) Failure to Pay Penalty
                

4. The Internal Revenue Service sent notices of the assessments and demands for payment to Hyde, Tarragon & Co., at 12355 N.E. 13th Ave., N. Miami, Florida 33161.

5. To date, the assessments against Hyde, Tarragon & Co. remain unsatisfied and are outstanding.

6. Interest and penalties continue to accrue on these liabilities, and there remains due and owing $153,649.41 as of January 1, 1989.

7. On March 4, 1982, the Internal Revenue Service filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien in the official records of Dade County, Florida, against Hyde, Tarragon & Co. for assessed, unpaid federal employment taxes, for the first, second, and third quarters of 1981.

8. The Notice of Federal Tax Lien listed the name as Hyde, Tar agon & Co. with 1 "r".

9. The proper spelling of the taxpayer's name is Hyde, Tarr agon & Co. with 2 "r's".

10. The filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was recorded in the Dade County, Florida Official Records Index. The Official Records Index for the period of January 1, 1980, through December 31, 1984, lists the Notice of Federal Tax Lien against the name "Hyde, Tar agon & Co." with 1 "r".

11. The Notice of Federal Tax Lien against "Hyde, Tar agon & Co." with 1 "r" appears on the same page as instruments filed against the name of Hyde, Tarr agon & Co. with 2 "r's".

12. At the time the Notice of Federal Tax Lien was filed, Hyde, Tarragon & Co. was the title holder of the real property, buildings and improvements thereon located at 12355 N.E. 13th Ave., N. Miami Beach, in Dade County, Florida.

13. On May 17, 1982, subsequent to the filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien, Hyde, Tarragon & Co. conveyed by warranty deed, the real property described in paragraph 2, less all buildings and improvements thereon, to Royal E. Blakeman, Esq., Trustee.

14. On May 17, 1982, Hyde, Tarragon & Co. conveyed, by warranty deed, the buildings and improvements thereon, to Jack Klugman, Reuben Klugman and Mildred Klugman.

15. Subsequently, on or about December 31, 1984, Royal E. Blakeman, as Trustee and individually, and Reuben Klugman and Mildred Klugman transferred their respective interests in the real property, buildings and improvements thereon to Jack Feinstein and Mark Feinstein, the current title holders to the property.

16. On or about January 21, 1985, Jack Klugman conveyed his interest in the buildings and improvements on the real property described in paragraph 2 to Jack Feinstein and Mark Feinstein.

17. Mildred and Reuben Klugman hold a promissory note from the Feinsteins as part of the financing of the purchase price for the property; the note, however, is unsecured and thus, the Klugmans have no recourse to the real property, buildings and improvements thereon.

18. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company is the owner and holder of a first mortgage on the real property at issue. The balance due on this mortgage is approximately $433,538.15 as of August 1, 1988.

19. Said mortgage originated and was recorded in the official records of Dade County, Florida in 1979, prior to the filing of the Notice of Federal Tax Lien on March 4, 1982.

Plaintiff, the United States of America, seeks to satisfy its federal tax lien by foreclosing upon the real property, buildings and improvements thereon located at 12355 N.E. 13th Ave., North Miami Beach, in Dade County, Florida. Defendants oppose this foreclosure, and maintain that the Notice of Federal Tax lien failed to provide the Defendants with actual or constructive notice of the lien due to the misspelling of the taxpayer's name.

Statutes Involved

Section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.A.).

Section 6322 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.A.).

Section 6323(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.A.).

Section 6323(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.A.).

Question Presented

Whether a reasonable inspection of the Index to the Dade County Official Records would have revealed the existence of the federal tax liens against Hyde, Tarragon Co.

Standard for Summary Judgment

Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that summary judgment shall be rendered if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law." Summary judgment is mandated against a party who, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, it is the Court's obligation to review the facts in the light most favorable to the adverse party and to allow the adverse party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). A ruling on summary judgment should be guided by the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). If there is no genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment is proper because it avoids needless and costly litigation and promotes judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • In re Hillard Development Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • August 4, 1999
    ...949, 952 (11th Cir.1986) (urging courts to exercise caution in granting motions for summary judgment); see also United States v. Feinstein, 717 F.Supp. 1552, 1555 (S.D.Fla.1989) (noting that summary judgment is an "extreme remedy which should not be granted, unless the moving party has esta......
  • In re Walker, Bankruptcy No. 03-32158-BKC-PGH.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 5, 2006
    ...questions which remain and terminate the case, thus avoiding the delay and expense associated with a trial. See United States v. Feinstein, 717 F.Supp. 1552 (S.D.Fla.1989). In considering a motion for summary judgment, "the court's responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact bu......
  • In re v. Amelung, Case No.: 07-15492-BKC-PGH (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 4/7/2010), Case No.: 07-15492-BKC-PGH.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • April 7, 2010
    ...questions which remain and terminate the case, thus avoiding the delay and expense associated with a trial. See United States v. Feinstein, 717 F. Supp. 1552 (S.D. Fla. 1989). In considering a motion for summary judgment, "the court's responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact......
  • In re Jsl Chemical Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Florida
    • February 10, 2010
    ...questions which remain and terminate the case, thus avoiding the delay and expense associated with a trial. See United States v. Feinstein, 717 F.Supp. 1552 (S.D.Fla.1989). In considering a motion for summary judgment, "the court's responsibility is not to resolve disputed issues of fact bu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT