ILNews

Judgment for IRS reversed, remanded

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court was not the proper forum to grant summary judgment in favor of the Internal Revenue Service in a dispute over a land contract that had been an issue in a prior bankruptcy case, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

In a dispute over a land contract for a property that had liens attached, Morgan Circuit Judge Matthew Hanson granted summary judgment in favor of the IRS in Victor W. Goodman and Jacquelyn C. Burke v. Steven L. SeRine, Suzanne M. SeRine, United States of America Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service, Robert J. DeGrazia, et al., 55A01-1304-PL-176.

The COA vacated that judgment and remanded with orders to dismiss Goodman’s complaint for quiet title. While the sellers’ bankruptcy action had been dismissed, dismissal does not change the conclusion that proper venue for a claim on the property resides in the bankruptcy court.

“As the purported transfer to Goodman took place after the SeRines filed for bankruptcy, the property presumably was part of the bankruptcy estate," Judge Melissa May wrote for the panel.
"Whether any interest could have been transferred to Goodman, or the nature of any such interest, are questions of bankruptcy law that must be resolved by the bankruptcy court, not by our state courts.

"… As the issues in the case before remain subject to bankruptcy court jurisdiction, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and direct it to dismiss the quiet title action."


 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT