Prodigy Centers v. T-C Associates

147 F.3d 1324

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: July 29, 1998
• Docket: 95-9448
• Status: Published

Opinion

PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 95-9448 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________ 2/17/03 D. C. Docket No. 1:95-CV-1157-RHH THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK

PRODIGY CENTERS/ATLANTA NO. 1 L.P.; PRODIGY CENTERS NO. 2 L.P.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

T-C ASSOCIATES, LTD., etc.,

Defendant-Appellee,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ______________________________ (July 29, 1998)

Before BIRCH, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In this case, the government and T-C Associates (“TCA”)

assert liens on a distribution to Prodigy Child Development Centers (“PCDC”) from a limited partnership. Although TCA

obtained a judgment against PCDC before the government

recorded its tax lien in 1993, the government argues that TCA’s

judgment lien did not attach to PCDC’s partnership interest until

TCA obtained a charging order in 1994, because PCDC’s

partnership interest was a “chose in action.” After determining

that the issue of whether the partnership interest was a chose in

action was dispositive of this appeal but unsettled as a matter of

Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme

Court of Georgia:

DOES A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTE A CHOSE IN ACTION?

Prodigy Centers/Atlanta No. 1 L.P. v. T-C Assoc., Ltd., 127 F.3d

1021, 1024 (11th Cir. 1997). In answer, the Supreme Court of

Georgia has decided that “a ‘partnership interest’ is a chose in

action.” Prodigy Centers/Atlanta v. T-C Assoc., No. S98Q0326,

__ S.E.2d __, __ (Ga. June 8, 1998). Since judgment liens

2 generally do not attach to choses in action under Georgia law

absent a collateral charging order to garnishment, see, e.g., id. at

__ n. 3, the government is correct that TCA’s lien did not attach

until 1994, well after the government recorded its own lien.

Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary

judgment for TCA and REMAND with instructions that the district

court enter summary judgment for the government.