Opinion
Case No. 13-56279 Adv. No. 13-5372
08-17-2020
IN RE: Rechela Patrice HALL, Debtor. Richard B. Hall, and Peggy A. Hall, Plaintiffs, v. Rechela Patrice Hall, Defendant.
Goodman Frost, PLLC, Southfield, Michigan, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. Rechela Patrice Hall, pro se, Defendant.
Goodman Frost, PLLC, Southfield, Michigan, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Rechela Patrice Hall, pro se, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEIZE PROPERTY
Thomas J. Tucker, United States Bankruptcy Judge
On May 27, 2014, the Court entered a $30,000.00 consent judgment against Defendant Rechela Hall, and in favor of the Plaintiffs (Docket # 59, the "Consent Judgment"). Recently, Plaintiffs submitted to the Clerk a document entitled "Request [For] Order to Seize Property," which, in relevant part, requests that this Court enter an order requiring "any sheriff, deputy sheriff, or authorized court officer" to "[s]eize and sell, according to law, any of the personal property (as determined by the officer) of [the Defendant] ... that is not exempt from seizure, as will be sufficient to satisfy" the debt arising out of the Consent Judgment, and to take certain other actions. (A copy of the request is attached to this Opinion and Order, for reference purposes.)
The Court must deny Plaintiffs' request, because this Court does not have authority to order a state sheriff or other state court officer to collect a judgment of this Court. See Reid v. McNeil (In re McNeil ), 569 B.R. 274, 275 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2017) ; see also Hauk v. Valdivia (In re Valdivia ), 520 B.R. 95, 97 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014), aff'd , No. 14-14429, 2015 WL 1015127 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2015) ("This Court has no authority to direct a state officer to serve and execute on a writ of execution. Only an appropriate state court would have such authority.").
In McNeil , this Court stated the following, relying on its ruling in Valdavia :
In Hauk v. Valdivia (In re Valdivia ), 520 B.R. 95, 97 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014) (footnote omitted), [a ]ff'd , No. 14-14429, 2015 WL 1015127 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 3, 2015), this Court stated:
[T]he Court concludes that only the United States Marshals Service may serve and execute on a writ of execution issued by this Court. No state court officer may do so. See Branch Banking & Trust v. Ramsey , 559 Fed.Appx. 919, 924 (11th Cir.2014) (interpreting 28 U.S.C. § 566(c) to mean that "only a U.S. marshal may execute the federal writ of execution by levying on and selling [a judgment debtor defendant's] property"). This Court has no authority to direct a state officer to serve and execute on a writ of execution. Only an appropriate state court would have such authority.
The Court explained further that:
if [the p]laintiff's counsel wants to use a state court officer to execute on a writ of execution, he can only accomplish that by domesticating this Court's September 3, 2014 default judgment in an appropriate Michigan court, and then have that Michigan court issue its own writ of execution, which a state court officer can then serve. Plaintiff can file an authenticated copy of this Court's judgment in the office of the clerk of a circuit, district, or municipal court in the state of Michigan under the "Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 691.1171 – 691.1179. That Michigan law provides, in relevant part:
Sec. 3. A copy of a foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with an act of congress or the laws of this state may be filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, the district court, or a municipal court of this state. The clerk shall treat the foreign judgment in the same manner as a judgment of the circuit court, the district court, or a municipal court of this state. A judgment filed under this act has the same effect and is subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of the circuit court, the district court, or a municipal court of this state and may be enforced or satisfied in like manner.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1173 (bold emphasis added). As used in this statute, "foreign judgment" includes a judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court—it "means any judgment, decree, or order of a court of the United States or of any other court that is entitled to full faith and credit in this state." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 691.1172.
Valdivia , 520 B.R. at 97–98.
McNeil , 569 B.R. at 276 (bold in original).
Thus, Plaintiffs may domesticate their Consent Judgment in an appropriate state court, and pursue collection of the Consent Judgment in that court. Or alternatively, Plaintiffs may file a request for this Court to issue a writ of execution directed to the United States Marshal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Request [for] Order to Seize Property" is denied, without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file a request for a writ of execution directed to (and only to) the United States Marshal.
Attachment