United States of America et al v. Renfrow

Filing 17

ORDER denying defendant's 13 Motion to Modify Writs of Continuing Garnishment; directing Clerk to CLOSE this case, signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.(SWT) (cc: Financial; Garnishees via USPS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4 5 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 v. LUANN RENFROW, Defendant, and GREENWAY-SOUTHLAKE OFFICE PARTNERS L.P., 11 12 Garnishee. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 13 14 v. LUANN RENFROW, 15 16 17 C17-1306 TSZ Defendant, and GREENWAY-LAKEWOOD PARTNERS, L.P., ORDER Garnishee. 18 19 C17-1305 TSZ THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant Luann Renfrow’s motions, 20 docket no. 13 in C17-1305 and docket no. 12 in C17-1306, to modify the Writs of 21 Continuing Garnishment issued in each case. Having reviewed all papers filed in support 22 of, and in opposition to, the motions, the Court enters the following order. 23 ORDER - 1 1 Background 2 Defendant pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting investment advisor fraud and was 3 sentenced to two years imprisonment. See Am. Judgment (CR16-269, docket no. 25). 4 Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4,183,500. Id. In July 2017, 5 the Government successfully applied for three writs of continuing garnishment, naming 6 as garnishees Scottrade (Case No. 17-mc-67), Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. 7 (Case No. 17-mc-65, now C17-1305), and Greenway-Lakewood Partners, L.P. (Case 8 No. 17-mc-66, now C17-1306). Defendant did not request a hearing or otherwise object 9 as to the garnishment proceeding involving her rollover individual retirement account 10 (“IRA”) with Scotttrade, and the garnishee was directed to pay to the Court the entire 11 amount in such account (estimated to be $114,546.99, less any federal tax withholdings 12 paid to the Internal Revenue Service), so that such funds could be applied to defendant’s 13 restitution obligation. Order (17-mc-67, docket no. 9). 14 With regard to the other two proceedings, defendant moves to limit the amount 15 subject to garnishment, citing the Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”), which 16 provides, in relevant part, that “the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of 17 an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed . . . 18 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week.” 15 U.S.C. § 1673(a)(1). Under 19 the CCPA, the term “earnings” means “compensation paid or payable for personal 20 services, whether denominated as wages, salary, commission, bonus, or otherwise, and 21 includes periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement program.” 15 U.S.C. 22 § 1672(a). The phrase “disposable earnings” is defined as the part of an individual’s 23 ORDER - 2 1 earnings that remains after deducting amounts required by law to be withheld. 15 U.S.C. 2 § 1672(b). 3 Defendant contends that the funds due to her on a quarterly basis from garnishees 4 Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. ($200 per quarter) and Greenway-Lakewood 5 Partners, L.P. ($3,000 per quarter) constitute “earnings” within the meaning of the 6 CCPA. According to defendant, while she was employed with Med-Data, Inc., a portion 7 of her salary was contributed to a 401(k) pension plan administered by Nationwide Life 8 Insurance Company. Renfrow Decl. at ¶ 1 (C17-1305, docket no. 15; C17-1306, docket 9 no. 14). In 2003, when defendant began working for her former husband’s company, 10 the Spangler Group, Inc. (“Spangler”), the amount in the Med-Data plan ($82,814.73) 11 was rolled over into Spangler’s retirement program. See id. at ¶ 1 & Ex. 1. The assets of 12 Spangler’s retirement program were invested with garnishees Greenway-Southlake 13 Office Partners, L.P. and Greenway-Lakewood Partners, L.P. (collectively, “Greenway”). 14 Id. at ¶ 1. 15 Spangler’s retirement program was eventually placed into state court receivership 16 proceedings and liquidated. See Order (C14-1203, docket no. 28). Defendant’s share of 17 the funds in the retirement program was calculated to be 26.1% or $99,963. Id.; see also 18 Prelim. Jt. Stmt. (C14-1203, docket no. 25); Stipulation (C14-1203, docket no. 27). The 19 other 73.9% of the assets of Spangler’s retirement program were garnished and later 20 applied to defendant’s ex-husband’s special assessment and restitution obligations. See 21 Order (C14-1203, docket no. 28); see also Order (CR12-133, docket no. 212). After the 22 amount subject to garnishment relating to defendant’s ex-husband’s criminal matters was 23 disbursed, the ownership interest in the Greenway accounts was apparently transferred ORDER - 3 1 from Spangler’s retirement program to defendant. See Renfrow Decl. at ¶¶ 3-4 & Ex. 3. 2 Defendant argues that the funds remaining in the Greenway accounts should be treated as 3 “disposable earnings” subject to the CCPA’s 25% cap on garnishment. 4 Discussion 5 The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”) authorizes the United 6 States to “enforce a judgment imposing a fine in accordance with the practice and 7 procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment under Federal law or State law.” 8 18 U.S.C. § 3613(a). The MVRA provides that, “[n]otwithstanding any other Federal 9 law . . . , a judgment imposing a fine may be enforced against all property or rights to the 10 property of the person fined,” except that certain property exempt from levy for taxes is 11 likewise exempt under the MVRA. Id. (emphasis added). The MVRA is also subject to 12 the CCPA’s 25% limit on the garnishment of disposable earnings. Id. at § 3613(a)(3). 13 The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the MVRA to allow the Government to reach 14 retirement plan benefits despite the anti-alienation provision of the Employee Retirement 15 Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th 16 Cir. 2007) (en banc). The Government, however, can garnish the corpus of an ERISA 17 plan to satisfy a restitution obligation only if the terms of the plan permit the judgment 18 debtor to demand a lump sum payment at the present time. Id. at 1060-64. As in the tax 19 levy context, in enforcing a restitution order, the Government’s right is merely “to step 20 into the defendant’s shoes,” and it cannot cash out a retirement plan when the defendant 21 would be prohibited by ERISA or the terms of the plan from doing so. See id. at 1063 22 (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Sayyed, 186 F. Supp. 3d 879, 882-83 23 (N.D. Ill. 2016). ORDER - 4 1 As the movant seeking to amend the Writs of Continuing Garnishment, defendant 2 bears the burden of proving that the Writs are, in their present form, invalid. See Novak, 3 476 F.3d at 1064; see also 28 U.S.C. § 3205(c)(5). Defendant has not, however, met her 4 burden. She has offered no evidence to suggest that she could not immediately withdraw 5 the entire amount in either or both of the Greenway accounts. 1 Instead, she has relied on 6 cases that are factually distinguishable because they deal with monthly pension benefits, 7 as opposed to the corpus of a 401(k) account. See United States v. DeCay, 620 F.3d 534 8 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that the United States could garnish only 25% of the defendant’s 9 monthly benefit from the Louisiana Sheriffs Pension and Relief Fund); United States v. 10 Miller, 588 F. Supp. 2d 789 (W.D. Mich. 2008) (issuing order of garnishment allowing 11 the United States to seize 25% of the defendant’s monthly benefit from the General 12 Motors Hourly Pension Plan); United States v. Wilson, 2007 WL 4557774 (S.D. Ga. 13 Dec. 20, 2007) (granting the Government’s proposed writ of continuing garnishment in 14 the amount of 25% of the defendant’s monthly benefit from the Teachers Retirement 15 System of Georgia). 2 16 17 1 Because defendant is over the age of 59½, she would not be required to pay a penalty for early withdrawal of the funds in the Greenway accounts. See 26 U.S.C. § 72(t)(2)(A)(i). Even if, 18 however, such 10% tax penalty did apply for voluntary withdrawal, it would not be imposed in connection with involuntary garnishment to pay a criminal restitution obligation. See Sayyed, 19 186 F. Supp. 3d at 884 (citing IRS Private Letter Ruling 200426027 at 12-13 (Mar. 30, 2004)). 2 Other decisions cited by the parties are not on point. In Usery v. First Nat’l Bank of Ariz., 586 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1978), the issue was whether compensation paid to an employee retains its character as “earnings” after it is deposited directly into the employee’s bank account. Id. at 108. 21 A bank account is not analogous to a 401(k) plan, and the Government’s reliance on Usery is misplaced. Contrary to defendant’s suggestion, Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Rodco Autobody, 22 965 F. Supp. 104 (D. Mass. 1996), did not apply the 25% limit at issue, but rather drew the conclusion that voluntary contributions to an IRA (as opposed to a 401(k) plan) do not qualify as 23 “earnings” and are not protected under the CCPA. Id. at 109. 20 ORDER - 5 1 District courts that have addressed the specific issue before the Court have held 2 that the Government is not bound by the CCPA’s 25% limit when garnishing either the 3 corpus of, or periodic disbursements from, a 401(k) account. See Sayyed, 186 F. Supp. 4 3d at 881-82; United States v. Gaddis, 2010 WL 908666 at *2 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 9, 2010) 5 (reasoning that “when Defendant’s wages were deposited into his [401(k)] retirement 6 account, they were essentially transformed into investments, since the value of the 7 account could fluctuate depending on a number of market factors,” and thus, garnishment 8 of the distributions from the account was “not limited by the provisions of the CCPA”); 9 United States v. Beasley, 2010 WL 99363 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2010). Unlike in Gaddis, in 10 this matter, defendant has made no showing that she is precluded from requesting a lump11 sum withdrawal of the funds in the Greenway accounts. See Gaddis, 2010 WL 908666 at 12 *1. Defendant has not sustained her burden to demonstrate that the Writs of Continuing 13 Garnishment must be modified to limit the Government to 25% of the funds remaining in 14 the Greenway accounts or that the Government may not garnish the corpus of, as opposed 15 to the quarterly distributions from, the accounts. 16 Conclusion 17 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 18 (1) Defendant’s motions, docket no. 13 in C17-1305 and docket no. 12 in C17- 19 1306, to modify the Writs of Continuing Garnishment issued in each case, are DENIED. 20 (2) Garnishees Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. and Greenway- 21 Lakewood Partners, L.P. shall deposit into the Registry of the Court the entire amount, 22 less any federal tax withholdings paid to the Internal Revenue Service, of non-exempt 23 ORDER - 6 1 funds in any and all accounts in garnishees’ possession, custody, or control, in which 2 defendant/judgment debtor Luann Renfrow has an interest. See Local Civil Rule 67(a). 3 (3) After the funds described in Paragraph 2, above, are deposited into the 4 Registry of the Court, they shall be applied to defendant/judgment debtor’s outstanding 5 restitution obligation. 6 (4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of 7 record and garnishees Greenway-Southlake Office Partners, L.P. and Greenway8 Lakewood Partners, L.P., and to CLOSE this case. If garnishees have any questions 9 about the process for depositing funds into the Registry of the Court, they may contact 10 either SueLynn Vazquez (206-370-8417) or Shannon Gregor (206-370-8416). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 DATED this 13th day of December, 2017. A 13 14 Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 7

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?