United States v. Weldon

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 29, 2023
Docket1:18-cv-01318
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. Weldon (United States v. Weldon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Weldon, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:18-cv-01318-JLT-SKO

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMANENTLY STAY 13 v. ENFORCEMENT OF COURT ORDER (Doc. 94) 14 PAUL D. WELDON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, THE COUNTY OF ORDER OF SALE 15 FRESNO, AND THE CITY OF FRESNO

16 Defendants.

17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 The United States filed this action on September 25, 2018, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 20 §§ 7401, 7403 to reduce federal tax assessments against Defendant Paul D. Weldon to judgment 21 and to foreclose federal tax liens on residential property owned by Defendant located at 6519 22 West Olive Avenue, Fresno, California, 93723 (“the Property”), (Docs. 1, 40), a single-family 23 home on a lot that is more particularly described as follows:

24 The East half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 13 South, Range 19 East, Mount Diablo 25 Base and Meridian, in the County of Fresno, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, Fresno County Records. 26 Excepting the West three-fourths thereof. 27 Also Excepting therefrom the South half of the East half of the South, Range 19 East, , Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, in the 1 County of Fresno, State of California, according to the official plat thereof, Fresno County Records. 2

3 (Doc. 93 at 2.) 4 On January 25, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part the United States’ 5 motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendant is indebted to the United States in the 6 amount of $767,041.19 for unpaid federal income tax, interest, and penalties for tax years 2000, 7 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2013, less credits according to proof, 8 plus interest and other statutory additions as provided by law. (Doc. 73 at 12.) The Court further 9 ordered that the federal tax liens of the United States upon the Property shall be foreclosed and 10 that the Property shall be sold to satisfy Defendant’s outstanding tax liabilities. (Id. at 12.)1 That 11 ruling was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on June 29, 2022 (Doc. 87), with the mandate entering 12 on October 6, 2022. (Doc. 90.) The United States was ordered file a proposed order of sale as to 13 real property belonging to Defendant. (See Doc. 73 at 13; Doc. 92 at 2.) 14 On July 28, 2023, the United States filed a proposed order of sale as to the Property. On 15 July 28, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to “permanently stay enforcement” of the Court’s prior 16 order(s) related to the sale of the Property. (Doc. 94.) The United States opposes the motion. 17 (Doc. 94), and Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. 96.) The Court finds the matter suitable for 18 decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for a permanent stay 19 is DENIED and the ORDER OF SALE IS ENTERED. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23

24 1 Additionally, the Court ordered that the proceeds from the sale of the Property shall be distributed in accordance 25 with stipulations entered by the Court on July 19, 2019 (Doc. 43) and February 21, 2020 (Doc. 49), reflecting stipulations among the United States, the California Franchise Tax Board, the County of Fresno, and the City of 26 Fresno, as to their respective interests in the Property. (Doc. 73 at 13.) The City of Fresno disclaimed any interest in the Property. (See Doc. 43.) Pursuant to those stipulations (Docs. 26, 43, 47, 49): Fresno County, California, the 27 California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”), the City of Fresno, California, and the United States, have agreed that after the property taxes on the Property are satisfied, the funds will then be applied to Defendant’s outstanding income tax 1 II. MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST ORDER OF SALE 2 Defendant argues that he was born with cerebral palsy, which has limited his physical 3 abilities, including his ability to earn a living, in numerous ways. (Doc. 94 at 1–2.) He further 4 indicates that he “has no life options,” no income, and that his Social Security will be 5 “negligible, since any contributing job history was decades ago while much younger and short 6 lived due to disabilities.” (Id. at 2.) Defendant states that the Property is his primary residence 7 and that forcing him “into homelessness and out into the environment and weather would be a 8 deprivation of civil rights and [ ] a miscarriage of justice contributing to even more irreparable 9 injury [and] more destruction to Human life.” (Id.) He requests that the Court permanently stay 10 the sale of his property and asks the Court to “grant and establish a life estate to allow defendant 11 to finish his days in his home of decades, with the understanding that at death or incapacity 12 causing defendant to leave[ ] the property, the property will then [ ] revert to plaintiff.” (Id. at 3.) 13 Defendant does not cite to any rule of procedure in his opening motion, but the Court will 14 construe it as one brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.2 Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the 15 Court may relieve a party from a final judgement or order “for the following reasons: (1) 16 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . . ; (3) 17 fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) 18 the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies 19 relief.” Here, the only possibly relevant provision is Rule 60(b)(6). A motion brought pursuant to 20 Rule 60(b)(6) must be “made within a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) and the rule “is 21 to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and . . . only where 22 extraordinary circumstances . . .” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 Furthermore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the 24 Court's decision, and recapitulation . . .” of that which was already considered by the Court in 25 rendering its decision. U.S. v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 26 2001) (internal quotation marks & citation omitted). Additionally, pursuant to this Court's Local

27 1 Rules, when filing a motion for reconsideration of an order, a party must show “what new or 2 different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon 3 such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion.” Local Rule 230(j). 4 As a threshold matter, the United States argues that Defendant has not brought this 5 motion “within a reasonable time,” presumably because the motion was filed more than two and 6 a half years after the Court’s summary judgment order. (Doc. 95 at 2.) This objection is 7 somewhat disingenuous, given that the Court explicitly put off ruling on Defendant’s equitable 8 arguments until a proposed order of sale had been presented to the Court. (Doc. 81 at 2 (“The 9 Court will therefore deny [Defendant’s] motion [for a stay] without prejudice to refiling, with 10 proper factual and legal support, when the status of the appeal is clarified and the United States 11 has set forth a proposed order of sale.”) However, because the motion will be denied on other 12 grounds, the Court finds it unnecessary to explore further the question of timeliness.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Weldon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-weldon-caed-2023.