US v. Wilson
- Summarized by Brandon Bickle , Gable & Gotwals, PC
- 13 years 2 months ago
- Citation:
- Case No. 10-7042 (D.C. No. 6:08-CV-00347-KEW) (E.D. Okla.)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Defendant/Appellant Wilson lacked standing to bring this appeal because, under Wilson's theory of the case, he could not demonstrate that any decision from the Court of Appeals could redress an injury to him. Wilson theorized that the government's liens were invalid because they only attached to Wilson's property, and Wilson did not own the real property in question because he had conveyed it to his former spouse in 1998-99. While the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Wilson was sufficiently aggrieved by the district court's opinion and order - which concluded that Wilson was the true owner of the property and the government was able to foreclose its liens against the property - it was required to assume the validity of Wilson's theory of the case for purposes of assessing his standing. Since Wilson's theory was that he did not own the property, he was not harmed personally and thus had no standing to obtain a review of the order granting the government's motion for summary judgment.
- Procedural context:
- In 2008, the government filed the underlying foreclosure lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, against Wilson and others, seeking to reduce certain tax liabilities of Wilson to judgment, set aside a fraudulent transfer of real property from Wilson to his former spouse, and foreclose the government's liens against said property. Both the government and Wilson filed motions for summary judgment. Wilson's motion was denied, and the government's motion was granted. Wilson appealed the order granting the government's motion for summary judgment.
- Facts:
- In 1997, the government obtained a judgment against Wilson for tax liabilities that arose in 1994. The judgment became a lien in favor of the government, which attached to Wilson's property. In 1998, and again in 1999, Wilson purported to convey certain real property (the subject of this appeal) to his then-wife, Ms. Wilson. The couple divorced in 2001. In 2003, Wilson filed bankruptcy and discharged his personal tax liability under the judgment, but the bankruptcy, of course, had no effect on the judgment lien. Later in 2003, due to an unspecified "mistake," the government filed a release of the judgment lien, and in 2004 (apparently) recognized the mistake and filed a revocation of the release, relying on 26 U.S.C. section 6325(f)(2) to reinstate the lien. Wilson argued that the government no longer had any valid liens against the property, given that it had been transferred to Ms. Wilson in 1998-99. According to Wilson, any lien based on tax liabilities prior to the transfer was released in 2003, and any lien for tax liabilities after the transfer could not attach to Ms. Wilson's property. Likewise, Wilson argued, the revocation of the release was ineffective to "re-attach" the lien to the property, since Wilson no longer owned it. (Interestingly, Ms. Wilson, who was also named as a defendant in the foreclosure case, transferred to the government by quit-claim deed any interest she had in the property). Utilizing several theories (but, in short, contending that the transfer to Ms. Wilson was a fraudulent transfer), the government argued that Wilson remained "the true and beneficial owner of the property" and therefore that its liens attached. The government prevailed on summary judgment, and Wilson appealed the ruling.
- Judge(s):
- Briscoe, Chief Judge, Ebel and O'Brien, Circuit Judges
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
