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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT