United States of America v. Hymes et al

Filing 296

ORDER RE TWO PENDING MOTIONS: RE 282 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED; RE 283 Motion for Return of Property is DENIED. (See order for full details). Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 07/14/2014. (CME, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD LOUIS HYMES; RITA MARINA
HYMES; AURORA TRUST, ZENA D.
HYMES & CHARLA A. HYMES, Trustees;
SUNSHINE TRUST, RITA MARINA
HYMES, Trustee; ZENA DORITA HYMES;
CHARLA HYMES; and FAIRBANKS
NORTH STAR BOROUGH,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:05-cv-00123-SLG

ORDER RE TWO PENDING MOTIONS
Before the Court are two motions that were filed by the Hymes: at Docket 282 a
Motion to Sanction the Plaintiff and the Insurance Company, and at Docket 283 at
Motion to Return the Hymes’ Personal Property to the Hymes. The Government filed
oppositions to both motions, to which the Hymes replied.

No party requested oral

argument, and oral argument was not necessary to the Court’s determination of the
motions.
In the motion at Docket 282, the Hymes seek sanctions based upon the asserted
failure of the Plaintiff “to record said property in Plaintiff’s name and maintain and insure
the property.” The Hymes also assert that State Farm improperly cancelled the
insurance on the property.

The United States’ tax liens on the property have been

foreclosed, and the United States has had the authority to offer the property for public
sale. 1 A public sale was held on July 9, 2014. Record title has remained with the
Hymes until the recent sale is confirmed by the Court, and the Hymes remain obligated
to insure the property until it is sold. 2 In light of the foregoing, the United States and the
insurance company have not violated the Court’s Orders by not recording the property
in Plaintiff’s name or insuring the property, and the motion for sanctions at Docket 282
will be denied.
With respect to the Hymes’ motion to return personal property at Docket 283, the
Hymes seeks the return of all the Hymes’ personal property that they assert was “taken
illegally and unlawfully by the Plaintiff . . . [w]hen the Hymes were evicted from their
home on August 29, 2012.” 3 In this regard, the Hymes interpret Paragraph 13 of the
Order and Amended Order to permit them to remain in the home until 30 days after the
sale of the subject property is confirmed by the Court.

They point to the term

“notwithstanding” that begins that paragraph, and appear to maintain that that term
means that the requirements of Paragraph 12, which directed the Hymes to
permanently vacate the property, and remove their personal property within 30 days of
the 2008 Order of Foreclosure, are superseded by Paragraph 13. But Paragraph 13
cannot reasonably be read to eliminate the requirements of Paragraph 12. Rather,
paragraph 13 is reasonably interpreted as “a fail-safe way of ensuring that the clause it
introduces will absolutely, positively prevail,” 4 to the benefit of the purchaser, such that if

1

Docket 277 at 3, ¶ 8.
Docket 277 at 5, ¶ 10 h; ¶ 11.
3
Docket 283 at 1.
4
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, Scalia, A. and Garner, B., at 127.
2

3:05-cv-00123-SLG, USA v. Hymes, et al.
Order
Page 2 of 3

for any reason the Hymes or anyone else is at the property after the sale is confirmed,
the purchaser can obtain a writ of assistance to evict them.
Accordingly, the Marshals were authorized to proceed in accordance with
Paragraph 12 of the Foreclosure Order, as the Hymes’ personal property that was at the
Ravenwood property had already been deemed ”forfeited and abandoned” beginning 30
days after the Foreclosure Order became effective in late 2008 when it was affirmed by
the Ninth Circuit. Therefore, the Hymes’ motion to have the personal property that was
at the Ravenwood home in 2012 returned to them will be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motions at Docket 282 and 283 are DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of July, 2014, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3:05-cv-00123-SLG, USA v. Hymes, et al.
Order
Page 3 of 3