Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Aultman

March 6, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARTHUR AULTMAN, ET AL. DEFENDANT.



SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

The issue before the court is whether real property purchased by the Defendant remains subject to federal tax liens where notice of the tax sale was not given in accordance with the applicable statute. I find that the property does remain subject to federal tax liens. The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, Chief District Judge.

OPINION and ORDER OF COURT

OPINION

The salient facts here are simple and undisputed. Defendants Arthur E. Aultman and Dorothy M. Aultman purchased property in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, more than fifty years ago ("Parcel Three"). In February of 1994, a notice of federal tax lien was filed against the Aultmans in connection with their 1989 income tax liability. Also in February of 1994, a notice of federal tax lien was filed against the Aultmans in connection with income tax liabilities for the years 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1989. Both liens were refiled in December of 2002. There is no dispute that the federal tax liens attached to Parcel Three. In 1995, the Aultmans transferred their tenancy by the entireties interest in Parcel Three to Dorothy Aultman.

In 2000, the Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania filed a Petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County to sell free and clear Parcel Three. Ultimately, on October 20, 2003, Defendant Mary Carol Aultman, the Aultmans' daughter, purchased Parcel Three at a tax sale. The Tax Claim Bureau then issues Mary Carol Aultman a free and clear deed.

The United States subsequently commenced this action. The United States seeks an entry of judgment in its favor and against Mary Carol Aultman, stating that Parcel Three remains subject to Federal tax liens. See Docket No. 19. The United States contends that the liens remain in effect because it was not given any notice of the sale. Mary Carol Aultman counters that the United States received actual notice of the sale.

After careful consideration, and for the reasons set forth below, I find that the liens remain in effect. The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment may only be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is material when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Rule 56 mandates the entry of judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against the party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

In considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must examine the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. International Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 898 F.2d 946, 949 (3d Cir. 1990). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. Where the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the party moving for summary judgment may meet its burden by showing that the evidentiary materials of record, if reduced to admissible evidence, would be insufficient to carry the non-movant's burden of proof at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party, who must go beyond its pleadings, and designate specific facts by the use of affidavits, depositions, admissions, or answers to interrogatories showing

Summary judgment may only be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is material when it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Rule 56 mandates the entry of judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against the party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

ANALYSIS

The facts of this case are clear and undisputed. Aultman concedes that the United States was never made a party to the proceeding in Westmoreland County relating to the sale of Parcel Three. See Docket No. 19, p. 2. Aultman further concedes that the United ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.