USA v. HARRIMAN et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 44 Motion for Hearing and to Stay Disposition. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY HARRIMAN,
KATHRYN HARRIMAN, and
UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS of
207 Burnham Road, Troy, Maine,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-00113-JAW

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR HEARING AND TO STAY
DISPOSITION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 3013 AND 3014
Facing imminent eviction, on May 4, 2015, Gregory and Kathryn Harriman
filed a motion for hearing and to stay disposition of an Execution of Ejectment on the
ground that their real property is exempt under 28 U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 3014. Mot.
for Hr’g and Stay of Disposition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§§] 3013, 3014 (ECF No. 44).
The asserted basis for the requested relief is that because their property is exempt
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 3014, the Government has no right to take possession
of it. Id. at 1-2.
The Government responded later on May 4, 2015. Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Hr’g
and to Stay Disposition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 3014 (ECF No. 45). The
Government says that the Harrimans’ property is not exempt. Id. at 1-3. It notes
that §§ 3013 and 3014 are part of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act
(FDCPA), which is not applicable to the Harrimans’ case because the Government is

not seeking “to recover a judgment on a debt” or “to obtain, before judgment on a
claim for a debt, a remedy in connection with such claim” pursuant to the FDCPA.
Id. at 1-2. Instead, the Government says that the pending civil action is to obtain
possession of the land from the Defendants and to eject them, and it has not sought
to collect a deficiency judgment against the Defendants. Id. at 2. Finally, to the
extent the Harrimans are claiming a right to the property, the Government points
out that the United States purchased the property at a public sale on February 11,
2011, thereby concluding the foreclosure proceedings. Id. at 3 (citing United States
v. Harriman, 1:09-cv-00348-JAW, Marshal’s Report of Sale (ECF No. 29)).
The Court agrees with the Government. The provisions of the FDCPA do not
come into play in this case. The Government’s action is for ejectment, not for debt
collection, and, in any event, the Harrimans may not claim an exemption for property
they do not own.
The Court DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for Hearing and Stay of
Disposition Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [§§] 3013, 3014 (ECF No. 44).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of May, 2015

2