Opinion
CASE NO. 02-70833
July 16, 2002
David M. Findling, The Findling Law Firm, Royal Oak, MI, for plaintiff.
John A. Lindquist, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Jeffrey G. Collins, United States Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for third-party defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on "Third Party Plaintiff and State Court Appointed Receiver, David Findling's Motion for Entry of Order Setting Aside Removal by the United States Attorney to the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division,] or, In the Alternative, for Authority to Settle Priority Claim of the Third Party Defendants." The United States responded. The Court reviewed the materials submitted.
On December 14, 2001, the Wayne County Circuit Court entered a judgment of divorce between Lorenzo Wilson and Jo-Renee Hunter Wilson. On January 25, 2002, the Wayne County Circuit Court appointed David Findling as Receiver for the purpose of enforcing the judgment of divorce. On February 8, 2002, Receiver Findling served the United States with a third-party complaint to quiet title to a piece of property owned by Mr. Wilson. The United States holds a tax lien against Mr. Wilson's property. On March 6, 2002, the United States removed the action to this Court.
It is unclear whether the divorce was between Mr. Wilson and Jo-Renee Hunter Wilson, as the United States mentions in its brief, or between Mr. Wilson and Ms. Ann Marie Wilson, as Receiver Findling states in the complaint. Either way, it is irrelevant for present purposes.
Receiver Findling filed a motion to remand the matter to the Wayne County Circuit Court, arguing that the removal was improper because this Court lacks jurisdiction over family law actions. Receiver Findling argues that the third party action is simply a supplemental proceeding to the underlying divorce proceeding, and therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Finally, Receiver Findling argues that third party defendants, such as the United States in this action, cannot properly remove an action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
While the Court generally agrees that federal courts lack the "power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees," the Court may still hear related matters that arise out of divorce actions, such as actions to enforce alimony decrees. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 701-03 (1992). In the present action, the Court is not being asked to issue a divorce or alimony decree; rather, it is being asked to resolve a question regarding the title to a piece of property on which the United States possesses a tax lien.
Because the United States is a sovereign entity, it is generally immune from suit. See United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 608 (1990). It must consent to being sued, and the terms of its consent define the Court's jurisdiction. See id. The United States has consented to actions to quiet title on pieces of property on which it holds mortgages or other liens, however, it has done so only on the condition that it be allowed to remove such actions to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1444. See 29 U.S.C. § 2410. Section 1444 provides that any state court action to quiet title on a piece of property that the United States holds a tax lien against "may be removed by the United States to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the action is pending." 28 U.S.C. § 1444. Therefore, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action to quiet title.
As for Receiver Findling's request for alternative relief, authority to settle the dispute, the Court notes that Receiver Findling's brief provides the Court with no reasons for granting the motion. The United States, however, notes that Ms. Jo-Renee Hunter Wilson has not consented to Receiver Findling's proposed settlement. Because Receiver Findling fails to give any reason why this Court should grant him authority to settle the dispute, the Court shall deny this request also. Therefore, "Third Party Plaintiff and State Court Appointed Receiver, David Findling's Motion for Entry of Order Setting Aside Removal by the United States Attorney to the [United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division,] or, In the Alternative, for Authority to Settle Priority Claim of the Third Party Defendants" is DENIED.