United States of America v. Hunter et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 12 Defendants Lori J.Hunter and Stephen C. Hunter's Verified Motion to Intervene and Removal of Trustee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 5/13/2014. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:14-cv-17-Oc-10PRL

LORI J. HUNTER, STEPHEN C.
HUNTER, DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN
and KURT F. JOHNSON
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Lori J. Hunter and Stephen C. Hunter’s
Verified Motion to Intervene and Removal of Trustee. (Doc. 12). The United States has filed a
response in opposition. (Doc. 16).
This is an action by the United States to reduce to judgment Lori J. Hunter and Stephen C.
Hunter’s unpaid federal income tax liabilities for certain tax periods between 1997 and 2009 and
to collect some of the amount owed by enforcing federal tax liens against the Hunters’ real
property. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges that the Hunters purported to convey title to the real
property (upon which the United States seeks to foreclose) via quit-claim deed, to Defendants Dale
Scott Heineman and Kurt F. Johnson as trustees of a trust (the “Hunter Family Trust”). Currently,
Heineman and Johnson are serving federal prison sentences for their role in an illegitimate debtelimination scheme, which according to the United States included having the Hunters transfer
their property to Heineman and Johnson as trustees. See United States v. Johnson, et al., 610 F.3d
1138, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 2010)(describing the debt-elimination scheme).

In the instant motion, the Hunters seek leave to intervene in this action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24. However, the Hunters are already parties to this action, and thus,
they are able to represent their own interests in the litigation. Accordingly, the Hunters’ request
to intervene is due to be DENIED as moot.
The Hunters also request that the Court remove Heineman and Johnson as trustees and
appoint “some other proper and suitable person” as trustee of the Hunter Family Trust. However,
the Hunters cite no legal authority to suggest that this is the proper forum to seek this relief.
Indeed, although the Hunters cite a Florida Statute governing trust proceedings1, the Hunter Trust
established its domicile in Alameda County, California and instructs that the Trust “shall be
construed under the laws of that jurisdiction.” Doc. 16, Exhibit C at ¶3.1. Moreover, even if this
Court can properly address the removal of the trustees, the Hunters have offered only conclusory
statements as to why Heineman and Johnson should be removed – i.e., they are unable

to

communicate due to being in solitary confinement; they have breached their duties as Trustees;
and they cannot defend the interest of the Hunters – and they have failed to provide any legal
analysis or even identify the appropriate legal standard for removal of a trustee. Accordingly, the
Hunters’ motion to remove the trustees is due to be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on May 13, 2014.

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

1

The Hunters cite §736.0201(4), Florida Statutes, which provides that “[a] judicial proceeding involving
a trust may relate to the validity, administration, or distribution of a trust, including proceedings to . . .
appoint or remove a trustee.”
-2-

-3-