United States of America v. Saccullo et al
Filing
47
OPINION AND ORDER granting 39 Motion for Default Judgment against Mark A. Saccullo; granting 39 Motion for summary judgment as to remaining defendants Katherine G. Stuenkel, Michelle Paull Proa, and Dorothy Saccullo. Plaintiff shall file a proposed final judgment by February 6, 2017, and email the same to Chambers. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/24/2017. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No: 2:16-cv-155-FtM-29CM
MARK
A.
SACCULLO,
individually,
and
as
personal representative of
the Estate of Anthony L.
Saccullo,
KATHERINE
G.
STUENKEL,
MICHELLE
PAULL
PROA, and DOROTHY SACCULLO,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the United States’
Motion for Summary Judgment and Default Judgment against Defendant
Mark A. Saccullo (Doc. #39) filed on July 5, 2016.
The Court has
reviewed the filings, the record evidence, and the applicable law
and has concluded, for the reasons discussed below, that the motion
for summary judgment and default judgment against Mark A. Saccullo
should be granted.
I.
On February 24, 2016, the United States filed a Complaint
(Doc. #1) against defendants Mark A. Saccullo (Mark), Katherine G.
Stuenkel (Stuenkel), Michelle Paull Proa (Proa), and Joanne C.
Holt (Holt) seeking to enforce a federal tax lien against certain
properties located in Charlotte County, Florida.
On March 10,
2016, Holt disclaimed any interest in the subject properties and
was dismissed from the case.
(Doc. #13; Doc. #14.)
On March 17,
2016, the United States filed an Amended Complaint adding defendant
Dorothy Saccullo (Dorothy).
Stuenkel
filed
an
answer
on
(Doc. #17.)
March
30,
Defendants Proa and
2016
(Doc.
#23),
and
subsequently filed a Joint Stipulation (Doc. #38) declaring the
United States’ tax lien as superior to their interests in the
subject properties.
The United States moved for entry of a clerk’s default against
Mark which was granted on May 4, 2016.
(Doc. #31.)
The United
States also moved for entry of a clerk’s default against Dorothy
(Doc. #30).
In response to the Clerk’s entry of default against
Mark, and the United States’ motion for default against Dorothy,
these defendants filed responses stating they did not contest any
proceedings by the United States and would cooperate fully.
#33; Doc. #34.)
(Doc.
The Court denied the United States’ motion for
default against Dorothy and allowed her the opportunity to file an
answer.
(Doc. #35; Doc. #37.)
The United States now seeks a default judgment as to Mark and
summary judgment against the remaining defendants.
letter response to the instant motion.
Mark filed a
(Doc. #43.) No other
defendants have responded and the time to do so has expired.
- 2 -
II.
According to the United States’ Amended Complaint, Anthony L.
Saccullo died on December 21, 2005.
(Doc. #17, ¶ 9.)
At the time
of his death, Anthony L. Saccullo owned an interest in two real
properties located at 501 Clearview Drive, Port Charlotte, Florida
(Clearview
Property)
and
293
Adalia
Terrace,
Port
Florida (Adalia Terrace Property). (Id. ¶¶ 10-11).
Charlotte,
Mark is the
personal representative of the Estate of Anthony L. Saccullo (the
Estate) and also an heir of Anthony Saccullo.
(Id. ¶ 5.)
On May
7, 2007, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury assessed
$1,380,097 in estate tax against the Estate of Anthony L. Saccullo,
as well as statutory interest of $71,354.38, a late filing penalty
of $62,104.36, and a late payment penalty of $55,203.88.
13.)
(Id. ¶
As a result of the Estate’s failure to satisfy the federal
estate tax owed, a federal tax lien arose and attached to all
property and all rights to property of the Estate, including the
Clearview Property and the Adalia Terrace Property.
(Id. ¶¶ 12-
16.)
III.
Section 6321 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that “[i]f
any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the
same after demand, the amounts . . . shall be a lien in favor of
the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether
real or personal, belonging to such person.”
- 3 -
26 U.S.C. § 6321.
The breadth of this provision “reveals on its face that Congress
meant to reach every interest in property that a taxpayer might
have.”
U.S. v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 720 (1985).
The
lien
arises
by
operation
of
law
“at
the
time
the
assessment is made and shall continue until the liability for the
amount assessed (or a judgment against the taxpayer arising out of
such liability) is satisfied or becomes unenforceable by reason of
lapse of time.”
26 U.S.C. § 6322.
An assessment is a procedure
by which the IRS records the liability of a taxpayer.
Behren v.
U.S., 82 F.3d 1017, 1018 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing 26 U.S.C.
§ 6203; 26 C.F.R. § 301.6203–1).
To reduce that assessment to a
judgment, “the Government must first prove that the assessment was
properly made.”
U.S. v. White, 466 F.3d 1241, 1248 (11th Cir.
2006).
A.
Default Judgment
The United States seeks a default judgment against Mark
personally, and as the personal representative of the Estate of
Anthony L. Saccullo.
The Return of Service (Doc. #11) states that
on March 4, 2016, plaintiff’s process server delivered a copy of
the Summons and Complaint upon Mark A. Saccullo, individually and
as Personal Representative of the Estate of Anthony L. Saccullo.
(Doc. #11.)
The United States sought and obtained a Clerk’s
Default and the Entry of Default.
failed
to
properly
appear
or
(Doc. #31; Doc. #32.)
otherwise
- 4 -
defend
this
Mark has
action.
Therefore, the United States has met the necessary prerequisite
for a default judgment against Mark.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s wellpleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the
judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus
established.
[ ] A default judgment is unassailable on the merits,
but only so far as it is supported by well-pleaded allegations.
[ ] A default defendant may, on appeal, challenge the sufficiency
of the complaint, even if he may not challenge the sufficiency of
the proof.”
Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc.,
561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
In support of the request for a default judgment, the United
States filed a declaration by plaintiff’s counsel verifying that
Mark is not currently on active duty status.
(Doc. #39-2.)
The
attached Status Report Pursuant to Service Members Civil Relief
Act (Doc. #39-3) reflects no active duty in the military.
The
United States also filed a Declaration by Bryan Morris, an IRS
Revenue Officer, verifying the assessment of the Estate’s federal
tax lien.
(Doc. #39-1.)
Mark filed a response to the Court’s entry of default (Doc.
#33) stating he “will not contest any proceedings by the U.S.
Department of Justice, and it has [his] full cooperation.”
#34.)
(Doc.
Mark also filed a letter response to the instant motion
- 5 -
(Doc. #43).
letter,
It is unclear what relief, if any, Mark seeks in the
however,
foreclosure.”
he
(Id.)
states
that
he
does
“not
protest
the
Mark has otherwise failed to appear or
defend the instant case.
Based on the foregoing and the facts
alleged in the Amended Complaint, the Court concludes the Amended
Complaint is sufficiently pled to support a default judgment
against Mark personally, and as the personal representative of the
Estate of Anthony L. Saccullo.
B.
Summary Judgment
Summary
judgment
is
appropriate
only
when
the
Court
is
satisfied that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
“An issue of fact is ‘genuine’ if
the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to
find for the nonmoving party.”
Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys “R” Us,
Inc., 611 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2010).
A fact is “material”
if it may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In
ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court views all
evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Tana v.
Dantanna’s, 611 F.3d 767, 772 (11th Cir. 2010).
However, “if
reasonable minds might differ on the inferences arising from
undisputed facts, then the court should deny summary judgment.”
- 6 -
St. Charles Foods, Inc. v. America’s Favorite Chicken Co., 198
F.3d 815, 819 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting Warrior Tombigbee Transp.
Co. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d 1294, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 1983)
(finding summary judgment “may be inappropriate even where the
parties agree on the basic facts, but disagree about the factual
inferences that should be drawn from these facts”)).
The remaining defendants, Stuenkel, Proa, and Dorothy were
named as defendants because they claim or may have an interest in
the subject properties sought to be foreclosed.
Stuenkel and Proa
have filed a Joint Stipulation (Doc. #38) declaring the United
States’ tax lien as superior to their interests in the subject
properties.
Therefore, the only disputed priority that may exist
is that of Dorothy who has requested that she “be paid the
mortgage” she has on the Adalia Terrace Property.
(Doc. #36.)
The record shows that Dorothy’s mortgage on the Adalia Terrace
Property was recorded on March 3, 2016, which is nearly four years
after the United States’ notice of the estate tax lien was filed.
(Doc. #39-1, ¶¶ 15, 20.)
Consequently, the mortgage held by
Dorothy is subordinate pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6323.
Moreover,
Dorothy has failed to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment
despite being given additional time to do so.
(Doc. #42.)
The United States has submitted Certificates of Assessment
which reflect the amounts and dates of taxes owed and penalties
assessed against the Estate.
(Doc. #39-1.)
- 7 -
See United States v.
Chila, 871 F.2d 1015, 1018 (11th Cir. 1989) (the “Court accepts
the document ‘Certificate of Assessments and Payments' submitted
by the government as presumptive proof of a valid assessment”
(citation omitted)).
Plaintiff has also filed the declaration of
IRS Revenue Officer Bryan Morris verifying the IRS’ calculations
in the Assessments.
(Doc. #39-1.)
This evidence creates a
presumption of correctness that defendants must rebut to defeat
summary judgment.
White, 466 F.3d at 1248; see also Helvering v.
Taylor, 293 U.S. 507, 514 (1935).
No defendant has challenged any
of the evidence the United States has presented.
Therefore, the undisputed facts in this case establish the
estate tax lien takes priority over any potential interest of the
defendants in this case.
Finding no dispute of facts or response
opposing the well-pleaded allegations of the Amended Complaint,
the request for summary judgment is granted.
C.
Foreclosure
Although styled as a motion for summary judgment and default
judgment, the United States also asks the Court to resolve this
case
completely
properties.
by
ordering
the
foreclosure
of
the
subject
Such a request of the Court is necessary.
As
discussed above, a tax lien attaches to property by operation of
law; however, the lien is not self-executing.
of Commerce, 472 U.S. at 720.
U.S. v. Nat’l Bank
The United States must petition for
sale of the lien property, after which:
- 8 -
The court shall, after the parties have been duly
notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all
matters involved therein and finally determine the
merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and
in all cases where a claim or interest of the United
States therein is established, may decree a sale of such
property, by the proper officer of the court, and a
distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to
the findings of the court in respect to the interest of
the parties and of the United States.
26 U.S.C. § 7403(c)
The Court concludes that the parties to this action have been
duly
notified
appropriate.
and
foreclosure
of
the
subject
properties
is
It is clear that the United States’ lien for the
Estate’s unpaid estate tax is superior to any interest of the
defendants.
However, it is unclear what interests, if any, the
defendants hold at this time.
Therefore, in order to determine
the proper distribution of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale, the
United States shall file a proposed order of final judgment by
February 6, 2017, which sets forth the proper distribution of the
sale proceeds taking into account the potential interests of the
defendants in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. #39) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Default Judgment against Defendant Mark A. Saccullo is
GRANTED.
- 9 -
b. Motion
for
Summary
Judgment
as
to
the
remaining
defendants Katherine G. Stuenkel, Michelle Paull Proa,
and Dorothy Saccullo is GRANTED.
2.
Plaintiff shall file a proposed order of final judgment
by February 6, 2017, and shall e-mail the proposed order in
Microsoft Word to the Chambers mailbox listed on the Court’s
website.
3.
Once Final Judgment is entered, Plaintiff shall promptly
file a motion for sale incorporating a proposed order of sale and
shall e-mail the proposed order in Microsoft Word to the Chambers
mailbox listed on the Court’s website.
4.
The
Clerk
of
Court
shall
terminate
all
pending
deadlines.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of January, 2017.
Copies:
Parties of Record
- 10 -
24th
day
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?