Arenas v. Sternecker
This text of 109 F. Supp. 1 (Arenas v. Sternecker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The issue before tlhe court arises upon the report of a referee, appointed in accordance with the statutes of Kansas providing for “Proceedings in Aid of Execution,” 1 to enforce a money judgment entered in the United States District Court [2]*2for the District of Nebraska, Lincoln Division, on November 21, 1946 in the amount of $18,500, with interest thereon at the rate of six percent per annum and costs amounting to $174.77.
At the outset some questions, probably of only academic importance, intrude: Was the judgment properly “registered,” as contemplated by the applicable statutes and rules? If not, what is the procedure contemplated; and what, if anything, should be done at this juncture?
Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1963, shown in the margin,2 provides that a judgment such as this may “be registered in any other district by filing therein a certified copy of such judgment” which shall then “have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner.” The term “registered” is not defined; but, as applicable here, it seems to connote a filing with the clerk and an entering upon the records in that office, in substantially the same -manner as a judgment rendered by this court. This seems to have been the view taken by the clerk, although no duplicate copy of the judgment was secured, as contemplated by local rule of practice XXI — -(4), adopted to make fully effective the use of the record book prescribed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts under Rule 79(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. But t(he failure of the clerk to require the duplicate copy has not prejudiced the defendant, and is a mere irregularity which the clerk will now correct; for the judgment is on file in this court and properly indexed for the information of the public. Moreover, the defendant has had notice of t/he filing and attempted registering of the judgment at all times since a certified copy of it was filed with the clerk.
Rule 69(a), F.R.C.P.,3 is .applicable. After a certified copy of the judgment was filed in this court execution was issued and returned “wholly unsatisfied, no property found on which to malee levy.” Order for the appearance of debtor in this court was subsequently entered, he appeared and was examined at length; but the pressure of other work animated this court in suggesting that the judgment creditor avail himself of the proceedings on and in aid of execution prescribed by the statutes of Kansas. That was done and a referee was appointed, who has now filed a report.
The judgment debtor assails the referee’s report because, it is said, the debt- or’s answers were not “reduced to writing” as required by the statute.4 The creditor concedes the answers were not reduced to [3]*3writing; so it is manifest the statutory-procedure was not strictly followed.® The court, therefore, cannot approve the report. It is obvious, however, that the referee has spent considerable time and effort hearing the evidence, examining court records, checking deeds, both recorded and unrecorded, and preparing detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court therefore awards him the amount suggested by him as a reasonable fee for services rendered to date, viz., $75. That amount will be taxed by the clerk as costs in this court and have precedence over the judgment and costs referred to above.
The order heretofore made appointing the referee is still extant; and under it tfhe referee may proceed. Whether the judgment creditor should be required to make a deposit sufficient to cover the expense of taking and transcribing the evidence or whether some other method of procedure should be adopted by the parties is not determined at this time.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
109 F. Supp. 1, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arenas-v-sternecker-ksd-1953.