United States of America v. Haughton

Filing 71

ORDER granting 70 Renewed Motion to Dismiss Writ of Continuing Garnishment. Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 7/26/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:09-mc-00211-RLV-DCK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY P. HAUGHTON, D.C.,
Defendant,
and
CARMEL CHIROPRACTIC CENTER,
Garnishee.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss
Renewed (“Renewed Motion”) (Doc. 70).

The Government’s Renewed Motion seeks the

dismissal of a Writ of Continuing Garnishment as to Garnishee Carmel Chiropractic Center (Doc.
61). The Government (Doc. 68) and Garnishee (Doc. 69) each filed answers in support of the
Renewed Motion (Doc. 70). Defendant has not filed a response. Since the time for briefing has
elapsed, this matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons stated below, the Renewed Motion
(Doc. 70) is GRANTED and the Writ of Continuing Garnishment as to Carmel Chiropractic
Center (Doc. 61) is DISMISSED.
I.

BACKGROUND
In 2009, the Government registered a judgment against Defendant Gregory P. Haughton.

(Doc. 1). This Court issued a writ of continuing garnishment as to Garnishee Carmel Chiropractic

1

Center.1 (Doc. 61). As of December 1, 2016, the principal balance on the judgment against
Defendant stood at $51,390.28. Id. at 1.
The Government previously filed a Motion to Dismiss Writ of Continuing Garnishment as
to Carmel Chiropractic (the “Motion”). (Doc. 66). This Court denied the Motion because the
record, at the time, indicated that Garnishee was in possession of monies and earnings due to the
Defendant. (Doc. 67 at 2). This Court’s order denying the Motion permitted the Government an
opportunity to file a renewed motion to dismiss so as to clarify the financial relationship between
Defendant and Garnishee and to explain why any monies held by Garnishee were not subject to
garnishment. Id. at 2-3. This Court also permitted Defendant and Garnishee twenty-one days to
file their own responses clarifying any financial relationship between Defendant and Garnishee.
Id. at 3.
The record establishes that, Defendant and Garnishee maintain a commercial space rental
agreement, with Defendant renting office space from Garnishee. (Doc. 69 at 1). Based on the
Garnishee’s initial Answer, it appeared Garnishee received earnings and payments on behalf of
Defendant and forwarded the earnings and payments to Defendant after deducting the rental fee
owed to Garnishee:
Garnishee collect [sic] payments for all chiropractors operating out of the
Garnishee’s place of business from a central payment location . . . From fees
collected by the Garnishee on behalf of the Defendant debtor the Garnishee retains
a thirty percent (30%) contingent rental fee. The remainder of the collected funds
are thereafter released to Defendant debtor.
(Doc. 65 at 2) (emphasis added). Through a Supplemental Answer, Garnishee indicates that
Defendant now directly collects all fees owed to him by patients for his services and that Garnishee
now receives its rental fee from Defendant. (Doc. 69 at 1). The Government and Garnishee agree

1

This Court issued an earlier writ of garnishment as to Carmel Chiropractic in this matter. (Doc. 5). This Court
dismissed the earlier writ (see Doc. 24) and the earlier writ has no bearing on the writ at issue in the Renewed Motion.

2

that the space rental agreement is the only remaining financial relationship between Garnishee and
Defendant. Id. The Government and Garnishee also agree that Garnishee no longer holds any
funds owed to Defendant. (Doc. 68 at 1, Doc. 69 at 1).
II.

ANALYSIS
To satisfy an outstanding debt resulting from a favorable judgment, the United States may

seek to garnish property in which the judgment debtor has a substantial, non-exempt interest. 28
U.S.C. § 3205, see also 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). However, if a garnishee no longer has possession,
custody, or control over property belonging to the defendant, the writ of garnishment against the
garnishee may be terminated. 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(10)(B). Based on the representations in the
Garnishee’s Supplemental Answer and in the Government’s Renewed Motion, Garnishee neither
currently possesses nor anticipates possessing any funds owed or payable to Defendant. (Doc. 69
at 1). Therefore, dismissal of the Writ of Continuing Garnishment (Doc. 61) is appropriate.
III.

DECRETAL
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:
(1)

The Government’s Motion to Dismiss Renewed (Doc. 70) is GRANTED; and

(2)

The Writ of Continuing Garnishment as to Carmel Chiropractic Center (Doc. 61)

is DISMISSED.

Signed: July 26, 2017

3