United States v. Green

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 25, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; WORLD
SAVINGS BANK FSB,
Defendant Cross Claimants -
Appellees,
BROOKLYN M. GREEN,
Defendant,
v. No. 15-5032
(D.C. No. 4:12-CV-00441-JED-FHM)
MARK ANDRES GREEN; JANA RAE (N.D. Okla.)
GREEN,
Defendants Cross Defendants -
Appellants,
and
D. SCOTT HEINEMAN; KURT F.
JOHNSON,
Defendants Cross Defendants.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
_________________________________
Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Proceeding pro se, Mark and Jana Green appeal from a district court order
granting summary judgment in favor of the United States and of several mortgagees
in the government’s suit brought to reduce the Greens’ federal tax liabilities to
judgment. The Greens argue the district court lacked subject-matter and personal
jurisdiction to render the judgment from which they appeal. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. Background
The United States commenced the present action in the Northern District of
Oklahoma to reduce the Greens’ unpaid tax liabilities to judgment and to enforce the
government’s liens by judicial sale of three of the Greens’ properties. In accordance
with 26 U.S.C. § 7403(b),1 the government named as defendants Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Bank of America, N.A., and World Savings Bank FSB (collectively, the
“Mortgagees”) because of the Mortgagees’ interests in the Greens’ properties. The
Greens owe more than $210,000 in unpaid taxes, including penalties and interest.
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
1
26 U.S.C. § 7403(b) provides: “All persons having liens upon or claiming
any interest in the property involved in [an] action [to enforce a federal tax lien] shall
be made parties thereto.”
2
This is not the Greens’ first appeal to this court regarding their taxes. See
Green v. Pershing, LLC, 516 F. App’x 685, 686 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished)
(affirming district court’s conclusion that Mr. Green could not file an action against a
third-party that had complied with an IRS notice of levy); Green v. Comm’r, 608 F.
App’x 671, 672 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (affirming Tax Court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in action
challenging the imposition of a federal lien on Mr. Green’s property). In the present
case, the Greens appeal the district court’s summary judgment order reducing their
federal tax liabilities to judgment.
II. Discussion
The Greens present two issues on appeal. First, the Greens argue that the
district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in the action below. Second, the
Greens argue that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over them.
A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
The Greens’ primary argument on appeal is that the district court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to reduce federal tax liens to judgment. We review de
novo issues of subject-matter jurisdiction. Angle v. United States, 996 F.2d 252, 253
(10th Cir. 1993). The Greens fail to present any coherent arguments that would
persuade us that the district court erred in exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in
this case.
As best we can tell from their briefing, the Greens argue that the district court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction given the court’s limited jurisdiction under Article
3
III of the United States Constitution. The Greens argue that the internal revenue laws
are not the “Laws of the United States” to which the Constitution refers, but laws
arising under the public-rights doctrine. Appellant’s Opening Br. 20 (“In 26 U.S.C. §
7402(a) ‘[E]nforcement of the internal revenue laws’ and are not ‘Laws of the
United States,’ but are under the ‘public rights’ doctrine.”).2 To the extent the
Greens argue the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the
government’s action to reduce federal tax liabilities to judgment, established law is
against them. In its complaint, the government noted that district court had
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1345, as well as 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402 and
7403. We agree.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1340, Congress conferred upon district courts “original
jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress providing for
internal revenue.” Further, 28 U.S.C. § 1345 provides that “the district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the
United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act
of Congress.” Perhaps most importantly here, 26 U.S.C. § 7403 provides:
In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or
to discharge any liability in respect thereof, whether or not levy has
been made, the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the
Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the
United States to enforce the lien of the United States under this title
with respect to such tax or liability or to subject any property, of
2
This type of argument, as the district court noted in its order denying the
Greens’ motion to vacate the judgment below, is representative of the Greens’ briefed
arguments.
4
whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or
interest, to the payment of such tax or liability.
Because Congress has authorized the district court to exercise its subject-matter
jurisdiction over this type of case, we affirm the district court’s exercise of that
authority here. See 26 U.S.C. § 7403(a).
B. Personal Jurisdiction
The Greens also argue the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over
them in this case because they are not citizens of the United States, but rather citizens
of Oklahoma. “We review de novo questions of personal jurisdiction.” ClearOne
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bowers, 651 F.3d 1200, 1214 (10th Cir. 2011). We agree with the
government that the Greens failed to dispute that they are residents of Oklahoma
subject to the district court’s jurisdiction.
“Federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant ‘who is
subject to the jurisdiction of a [state] court . . . in the state where the [federal] court is
located.’” Newsome v. Gallacher, 722 F.3d 1257, 1264 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A)). Because the Greens are citizens of Oklahoma, therefore,
the Northern District of Oklahoma properly exercised personal jurisdiction over
them.
The decision of the district court is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips
Circuit Judge
5