United States of America v. Bolds

Filing 28

ORDER denying 22 Motion relief from judgment and to stay garnishment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 06-15579
Plaintiff,
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
v.
YOHANNES BOLDS,
Defendant
and
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY,
Garnishee.
/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND
TO STAY GARNISHMENT [22]
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Yohannes Bolds’s motion for relief
from judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) or (b)(6). For the
reasons stated herein, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
I.

Procedural History
On December 14, 2006, the Government filed a complaint against Defendant seeking

payment on two student loans taken out in 1992 and 1993. (Dkt. 1.) On September 20,
2007, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and awarded the
Government a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $5,245.21, plus pre- and postjudgment interest. (Dkt. 12.) In 2009, Plaintiff garnished Defendant’s lottery winnings of
$2,533.69. (Dkt. 24, at 5.) There have been no other post-judgment payments received by

Plaintiff. (Id.) Defendant filed this motion on January 13, 2016, seeking relief from the 2007
judgment against him pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and (b)(6). (Dkt. 22.)
II.

Analysis
Rule 60(b)(5) provides for relief from judgment where a judgment has been satisfied,

released, or discharged. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). Defendant argues that a payment of
$4,468.25 was paid toward his loans in 2003. (Dkt. 22, at 2-3.) Defendant contends that
with this payment, the debt was paid in full, and the 2007 judgment should thus be vacated
and relief provided. (Id.) Plaintiff acknowledges having received the 2003 payment of
$4,468.25. (Dkt. 24, at 4.) According to Plaintiff, however, the payment—which was applied
to Defendant’s account at the time it was received—did not satisfy Defendant’s outstanding
balance. (Id.) As of the date of the filing of the Complaint in 2006, Defendant owed a total
of $5,245.21. (Dkt. 1.) And as of the date of the hearing on this motion, Plaintiff informed
the Court that the present balance on Defendant’s account was $4,468.75. Thus, relief
under Rule 60(b)(5) is not warranted, because the debt has not been paid in full, or
otherwise satisfied, released, or discharged.
Rule 60(b)(6) permits relief for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6). Rule 60(b)(6) is a catch-all provision that is only to be applied in “unusual and
extreme situations where principles of equity mandate relief.” Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454
F.3d 590, 597 (6th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). Such relief is “extremely limited.”
Isa v. Law Office of Timothy Baxter & Assocs., No. 13-cv-11284, 2013 WL 5692850, at *2
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2013). At the hearing on this motion, Defendant argued for relief for
the additional reason that he was not responsible for having taken out the second loan in
1993. As Defendant has provided no support for this argument, however, the Court cannot
2

conclude this is the type of “unusual and extreme situation” which would warrant application
of Rule 60(b)(6).
III.

Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
S/Nancy G. Edmunds
Nancy G. Edmunds
United States District Judge

Dated: February 24, 2016
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on February 24, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Carol J. Bethel
Case Manager

3