Regions Bank v. United States of America, Department of the Treasury - Internal Revenue Service et al
Filing
28
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION denying plaintiff's 26 Motion for Reconsideration of 25 Order denying Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Tena Campbell on 4/17/13. (ADA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
REGIONS BANK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and
TRACEY D. COTNER,
Defendants.
ORDER
AND
MEMORANDUM DECISION
No. 3:12-cv-21
Judge Tena Campbell
In this quiet title suit involving property located in Tennessee, Plaintiff Regions Bank
filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to determine whether Regions Bank’s
interest in the property has priority over a United States tax lien. The court denied the motion for
summary judgment (Docket No. 25).
Regions Bank now brings a Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 26), in which it contends
that the court failed to consider the reasoning set forth in a recent case from the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. United States of
America, 783 F. Supp. 2d 243 (D.N.H. 2011). The United States opposed the Motion to
Reconsider, arguing that Regions Bank has not demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary,
and that even if it had, the reasoning in Green Tree is not persuasive because the factual and
legal contours of Green Tree are different from those in this case (Docket No. 27).
For the reasons set forth below, the court agrees with the United States and finds that
Regions Bank’s Motion to Reconsider should be denied.
First, the court has already considered the Green Tree decision. While reviewing
Regions Bank’s motion for summary judgment, the court’s own legal research located the Green
Tree case. The court carefully considered the reasoning in that case, and found it to be
unpersuasive; instead, the court found more persuasive the reasoning presented in Haas v.
Internal Revenue Service, 31 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 1994).
Second, even if the court had not found or considered the Green Tree decision, Regions
Bank cannot now use it as a basis for reconsideration. To succeed, a Motion requesting the court
to alter its judgment must show one of four things: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest
injustice.” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)). A party may not use a
motion to reconsider to reargue matters already decided by the court. Id.
Regions Bank has not presented the court with any of the four bases for reconsideration.
Instead, Regions Bank uses the Green Tree decision—which in not controlling law in this
jurisdiction—as a means of merely re-arguing the case. As a result, Regions Bank fails to
present anything that has not already addressed by the court and its arguments are unavailing.
The court hereby DENIES the Motion to Reconsider (Docket No. 26).
SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?