United States v. Mooney

Background

The United States sued William J. Mooney and Joni T. Mooney to reduce federal tax and penalty assessments to judgment and enforce federal tax liens against property they jointly owned. On May 18, 2018, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the United States and against the Mooneys for their respective federal tax debts. The judgment ordered that the liens be enforced through a judicial sale of the property at 409 6th Avenue Northwest, Little Falls, Minnesota.

After the court denied the Mooneys’ motions to dismiss and to vacate the judgment, it ordered the property sold. Notice was published once a week for four consecutive weeks. The sale occurred on September 25, 2019, and Laurie Veillette submitted the highest bid, $81,000. The Internal Revenue Service incurred $925.59 in sale expenses, and $765.44 in property taxes was owed to the Morrison County Treasurer.

Motions concerning the sale

The United States moved to confirm the sale, direct the Internal Revenue Service Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialists to deliver a deed to Veillette, and distribute the proceeds. The Mooneys did not challenge the sale procedures, but they continued to argue that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court held that the law-of-the-case doctrine barred them from repeating arguments that the court had already rejected. It also found that the United States had complied with the order of sale and granted the motion to confirm the sale.

The court approved and confirmed the sale to Veillette for $81,000. It directed the Internal Revenue Service to execute and deliver a deed to her. It ordered distribution of $925.59 to the Internal Revenue Service for sale expenses, $765.44 to the Morrison County Treasurer for outstanding property taxes, and the remaining $79,308.97 to be applied toward the Mooneys’ federal tax liabilities.

Subpoena

The United States moved to quash, meaning cancel, a subpoena directed to Jennifer Breuchaud, an Internal Revenue Service Property Appraisal and Liquidation Specialists agent. The court found that the Mooneys had not properly served the subpoena under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The court also found that they had not identified potentially relevant testimony, had notified the agent only shortly before the hearing, and would have required her to travel more than 500 miles to testify. The court therefore found the subpoena unduly burdensome and granted the motion to quash.

The Mooneys’ motions and disposition

The Mooneys filed five motions, docketed as Documents 206, 207, 218, 220, and 221. The court understood them to seek an extension of a deadline because of a related appeal, cancellation of a scheduled hearing, and relief based on their assertions that the judgment was not final, that they lacked notice about the nature of the case, and that the court and government counsel lacked authority. The court considered the motions despite the government’s argument that the Mooneys had not followed local meet-and-confer requirements. It found no reason to extend deadlines because of the separate appeal, rejected the contention that the judgment was not final, stated that the case was against the Mooneys personally rather than only against the property, and declined to revisit arguments already rejected. The court denied all five motions.