Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:00CV0547RM.
April 9, 2001.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 7, 2000, the United States filed a complaint against six defendants to enforce a federal tax lien. The government voluntarily dismissed its claims against two of the defendants, and defendants Earnest and Laura Tillman responded to the government's complaint by sending the government a document (the government filed the document with the court) captioned as a "Response to Summons in a Civil Action." This document could fairly be interpreted as an answer to the complaint or a motion to dismiss the complaint. The government has asked the court to make that determination and require the Tillmans to file a more definite statement if the court treats the document as an answer to the complaint, or alternatively to deny the motion if the court decides to treat the document as a motion to dismiss.
Earnest and Laura Tillman are representing themselves at this point in the proceedings, so the court interprets their pleadings more liberally than those drafted by lawyers. McCormick v. City of Chicago, 230 F.3d 319, 325 (7th Cir. 2000). While the Tillmans' response contains the phrase "answer to the complaint." it asks the court to dismiss the government's complaint because the Tillmans say they were never given an option to work out a payment plan before the government began these proceedings. Because of this language, the court treats the Tillmans' response as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. The time for the Tillmans to reply to the government's opposition has passed and this matter is ripe for decision.
Rule 12 allows the court to dismiss a complaint for several reasons, but the reason given by the Tillmans is not one of them. The court finds no authority that requires the government to work out a payment plan before pursuing its rights under a tax lien, so dismissal of the United States complaint for that reason would be inappropriate. Contra Kennedy v. United States, 965 F.2d 313, 418 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that a taxpayer "is not entitled to a settlement agreement of tax liability as a matter of right").
For this reason, the court DENIES the Tillman's motion to dismiss [Docket No. 18]. The court AFFORDS the Tillmans twenty days to file an appropriate response with the clerk of this court. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment being entered against them. The court also directs the Tillmans' attention to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that any paper the Tillmans want the court to consider must be filed with the court, with a copy served on counsel for each party in the case.
SO ORDERED.