Opinion
Civil No. JFM-08-335
05-12-2014
JOHN MICHAEL SCHAEFER v. BANC OF AMERICA INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
MEMORANDUM
In this interpleader action John Michael Schaefer and the United States have filed motions for summary judgment. Schaefer's motion will be denied and the United States' motion will be granted.
In opposing defendant's motion plaintiff has raised two issues, neither of which has merit.
First, plaintiff contends that there is a dispute of material fact because it cannot be determined when the funds that are subject to the interpleader were converted from an IRA to a non-IRA account. If they were in an IRA account, according to plaintiff, the levy issued by the Internal Revenue Service was unauthorized. No dispute of material fact exists, however. In a related action, Schaefer v. Banc of America Investment Services, Inc., Civil No. 9-cv-498, plaintiff stated: "[t]he transfer was made from the IRA account prior to service of any IRS current levy, but upon the transfer out of the IRA account when funds were in the non-IRA account, they were seized by an IRS levy and remain there today subject to legal process of the IRS, and none of the funds ever reached the intended beneficiary, the IRA vendor." This statement constitutes a judicial admission that is binding upon plaintiff.
Second, citing his age, health, and difficult financial circumstances, plaintiff argues that this court should not order foreclosure of the tax liens. In United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 709 (1983), the Supreme Court stated: "We can think of virtually no circumstances, for example, in which it would be permissible to refuse to authorize a sale simply to protect the interest of the delinquent taxpayer himself or herself." I find no special circumstances that exist here that should prevent me from ordering foreclosure of the tax liens.
A separate order effecting the rulings made in this memorandum is being entered herewith.
__________
J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge