United States of America v Steven C. Nagy, et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 55 Motion for Forfeiture of Property; denying 58 Motion for Hearing; and denying 62 Motion for Extension of Time.(TG; cc mailed to defendants)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 STEVEN C. NAGY, aka STEPHEN C.
NAGY; LILIAN NAGY; STEPHEN C.
12 NAGY as Trustee for Sultan Estates Trust;
LILIAN NAGY, as Trustee for Sultan
13 Estates Trust,
14

CASE NO. C11-5066 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS,
MOTION FOR HEARING, AND
MOTION FOR APPEAL

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Stephen C. Nagy’s (“Mr.

17 Nagy”) objection to the Government’s proposed order of foreclosure and judicial sale
18 (Dkt. 55), Mr. Nagy and Lilian Nagy’s (“Mrs. Nagy”) motion for a hearing (Dkt. 58), and
19 Mr. and Mrs. Nagy’s motion for appeal (Dkt. 62).
20

On June 26, 2012, the Court granted the Government’s motion for default

21 judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Nagy based on numerous discovery violations. Dkt. 49.
22 The Government submitted a proposed order of foreclosure and judicial sale of Mr. and

ORDER - 1

1 Mrs. Nagy’s home to compensate the Government for Mr. Nagy’s unpaid taxes. Dkt. 52.
2 Mr. Nagy filed an objection to the proposed order and submitted a commercial security
3 agreement that purports to transfer all of Mr. Nagy’s rights in the home to a “Juristie
4 Person/Strawman/Dummy Corporation.” Dkt. 55. The agreement was supposedly
5 entered into on December 13, 1945, yet Mr. Nagy signed the agreement on December 16,
6 2011. Id. Even if the document was authentic, Mr. Nagy has failed to show how his
7 “proof of claim” is a valid objection to the Government’s foreclosure. Therefore, the
8 objection is DENIED.
9

With respect to the motion for a hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Nagy’s submissions are

10 irrelevant and untimely. They have submitted a letter from a disbarred attorney
11 explaining why federal income taxes are illegal and Mr. Nagy’s service record. Neither
12 of these documents overcomes the failure to cooperate during discovery and the Court is
13 not persuaded that a hearing should be held to discuss any additional responses.
14 Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for a hearing.
15

With respect to the motion for appeal, the motion appears to consist of two

16 requests. The first request seems to be an extension of time to file an appeal. Mr. and
17 Mrs. Nagy have 60 days from the entry of judgment, or until September 29, 2012, to file
18 an appeal because the United States is a party. RAP 4(a)(1)(B)(i). Therefore, the Court
19 denies the request to grant an extension of time to appeal.
20

The second part of the motion appears to be an offer of settlement with the

21 Government for the original amount of alleged unpaid taxes. Mr. Nagy proposes a 3022

ORDER - 2

1 year loan at 5% interest to pay this amount. The Court has no authority to consider or
2 grant this request. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for appeal.
3

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

4

Dated this 5th day of September, 2012.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3