USA v. LaRosa, et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/5/2017. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 96-0980

:
DOMINICK LAROSA, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution is the motion to
reopen case and renew judgment lien filed by Plaintiff United
States (“Plaintiff” or “Government”), (ECF No. 49).

The issues

have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being
deemed necessary.

Local Rule 105.6.

For the following reasons,

the motion to reopen and renew judgment will be granted.
I.

Background
On November 7, 1997, a judgment was entered in favor of

Plaintiff and against Defendant Dominick LaRosa and Defendant
Catherine

LaRosa

(“Defendants”)

for

$1,520,885.58

statutorily accrued interest since April 11, 1994.

plus

An abstract

of judgment was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County on January 9, 1998.
unsatisfied.

The judgment remains

(ECF No. 49-1).

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff moved to renew the judgment
lien.

(ECF

No.

49).

Defendants

responded

and

opposed

the

motion.

(ECF

No.

55).

responded to the reply.
II.

Plaintiff

replied,

and

Defendants

(ECF Nos. 56, 57).

Motion to Renew Judgment Lien
Plaintiff brings this motion under 28 U.S.C. § 3201(c).

(ECF No. 49).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3201(a), the judgment in

this case, when appropriately filed, “create[d] a lien on all
real property of” Defendants.

The lien is effective for 20

years and can be renewed for “one additional period of 20 years”
if the “the notice of renewal is filed before the expiration of
the 20-year period” and “the court approves the renewal of such
lien[.]”

28

U.S.C.

§

3201(c)(2),

§

3201(c)(2)(A),

§

3201(c)(2)(B).
Defendants do not dispute that the judgment has not been
satisfied and that the United States properly filed for renewal,
but assert that the court should refuse to approve the renewal
of the lien because renewal “would be completely inequitable.”
(ECF No. 55-1, at 4).

Defendants argue that the doctrine of

laches bars the government from receiving a renewed judgment
lien.

(Id. at 3).

For the reasons to be discussed, Defendants’

arguments will be rejected and the renewal will be approved.
The Federal Debt Collection Procedure is codified in 28
U.S.C.

§

3001,

et

seq.

and

provides

the

exclusive

procedures for the United States to recover on a debt.
3201

provides

that

a

judgment
2

creates

a

lien

on

civil
Section

all

real

property

of

a

judgment

debtor

when

a

certified

copy

of

the

abstract of the judgment is filed in the same manner in which a
notice of tax lien would be filed.

Tax liens are filed in one

office within the county as designated by State law.
§ 6323(f).

26 U.S.C.

Maryland law designates the clerk of the circuit

court of the county in which the real property is situated as
the proper place to file notices of federal liens.

Md.Code

Ann., Real Property § 3-401.
Although

the

statute

provides

that

court

approval

is

a

necessary prerequisite to the renewal of a lien, no conditions
to the renewal appear in the law and the parties do not cite to
any particular requirements.

Even in other situations, such as

actions in state court, the defenses that may be interposed in a
revival proceeding are severely limited.

Only defenses that

challenge the viability of the judgment itself, such as it is
void or was paid or otherwise discharged, may be raised.
Am.Jur. 2d Judgments § 394 (2017).

46

In this federal proceeding,

which is even more circumscribed, the complaints raised by the
LaRosas are unavailing.

Their lament that a proposed settlement

offer many years ago went unanswered says nothing about the
validity of the judgment, or whether it has been satisfied or
discharged.
Even
pertinent,

were
the

equitable
argument

considerations

would

fail.
3

To

such

as

establish

laches
a

laches

defense, a defendant must prove a “(1) lack of diligence by the
party against whom the defense is asserted, and (2) prejudice to
the party asserting the defense.”
265, 282 (1961).

Costello v. U.S., 365 U.S.

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Plaintiff

did not sleep on its rights.

Even while the appeal was pending,

the government undertook discovery to ascertain the location of
available

assets.

Plaintiff

filed

Shortly

an

after

abstract

of

entry

of

judgment

in

the
the

judgment,
appropriate

government office to impose a lien on Defendants’ real property.
Defendants do not assert that Plaintiff could have forced a sale
or

used

another

mechanism

to

recover

more

quickly.

Thus,

although the judgment has gone unsatisfied, Plaintiff diligently
pursued its rights and laches does not apply.
Moreover,

for

the

purposes

of

laches,

prejudice

“is

demonstrated by a disadvantage on the part of the defendant in
asserting or establishing a claimed right or some other harm
caused
White

by
v.

detrimental
Daniel,

909

reliance

on

F.2d

102

99,

the
(4th

plaintiff’s
Cir.

1990).

Defendants do not assert any detrimental reliance.
also

cannot

establishing

demonstrate
their

rights

a

disadvantage
because

they

opportunity fully to litigate their rights.

in

conduct.”
Here,

Defendants
claiming

already

had

or
an

The only evidence

relevant to the motion to renew the judgment lien is in the

4

county

and

court

records.

Thus,

Defendants

have

not

shown

prejudice.
Despite

Defendant

Dominick

LaRosa’s

diminished

condition

and Defendant Catherine LaRosa’s lesser role in the underlying
tax controversy, Plaintiff has fully complied with applicable
law, and the request to approve renewal of the judgment lien
will be granted.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to renew the judgment
lien

filed

by

Plaintiff

United

States

will

be

granted.

separate order will follow.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5

A