United States of America v. Doucas et al
Filing
44
ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 8/10/11: granting 43 defendants' Motion for Leave to File Amended Reply; denying 40 defendants' Motion for Extension of Time. (cc: all counsel) (nm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 05-CV-1282
WILLIAM P. DOUCAS,
and ELIZABETH DOUCAS,
Defendants.
ORDER
On June 27, 2011, defendants William P. Doucas and Elizabeth Doucas
(“Doucases”) filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Docket #40) requesting
modification of the Agreed Installment Payment Order (“Installment Order”) (Docket
#39) governing payments the Doucases must make toward the judgment in this
case. The judgment, entered in February 2006, arises from unpaid federal income
taxes, penalties and interest as well as unpaid trust-fund-penalty assessments. The
court issued the Installment Order on July 21, 2010.
The order required the
Doucases pay $20,210.00 on the sixteenth of each month until satisfaction of the
judgment. The Doucases made payments through April 2011, but, as of the filing
of the instant motion, had not paid the May or June 2011 payments. The Doucases’
motion thus requested until July 20, 2011, to make the May, June and July
payments. Because full briefing extended beyond the requested July 20, 2011
deadline, the Doucases ask in their reply brief to have until August 19, 2011, to
make the May, June, July, and August payments.
The Doucases’ asserted reason for their inability to pay these installments is
the entry of a preliminary injunction in a case against the Doucases in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. That case also resulted from unpaid
federal tax liability.
The district court there entered a preliminary injunction
preventing the Doucases from encumbering, liquidating, transferring, or disposing
of a cumulative value of $250,000 or more of the shares or assets of the Doucases’
closely-held corporation Engage Networks, Inc., or its wholly-owned subsidiary
Elutions, Inc. According to their motion, the Doucases assert that this injunction “for
all intents and purposes, prevented the Doucases from receiving significant
upstream distributions from an account with Goldman Sachs titled in Elutions’ name,
and other accounts, that were or could be used to pay the two and future installment
payments in this case.” This is the extent of the showing made. The Doucases
state in their reply brief that a global settlement has now occurred, and the
preliminary injunction should be dissolved in time to conform to the requested
August 19, 2011 payment deadline for all payments currently owing.
The Doucases also requested that the court order the plaintiff United States
to provide an accurate account of the balance owing. However, on August 2, 2011,
they filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Reply (Docket #43) which essentially
abandons their request for an accounting (presumably because one has been
-2-
provided). Thus, the court will grant that motion and deny that portion of the motion
for extension as moot. In turn, the United States, in its briefing, but not by motion,
requests not only denial of the motion but that the court order W illiam Doucas be
held in civil contempt and that it be awarded related attorneys’ fees.
I.
MODIFICATION OF INSTALLMENT ORDER
The Doucases have failed to sufficiently establish that the court should modify
the Installment Order as requested. “On motion of the . . . judgment debtor, and
upon a showing that the judgment debtor's financial circumstances have changed
or that assets not previously disclosed by the judgment debtor have been
discovered, the court may modify the amount of payments, alter their frequency, or
require full payment.” 28 U.S.C. § 3204(b). W hile the preliminary injunction in the
Florida case may have hampered the Doucases’ access to funds in some fashion,
that fact standing alone fails to establish that their financial circumstances have
changed such that they could not make payments in the amount of $60,630 over the
course of three months (or $80,840 by the upcoming August 16, 2011 due date).
First, the Doucases have failed to submit any other financial information to support
the assertion that, without access to the assets or funds involved in the preliminary
junction, they have access to no other funds in order to make the payments required
by the Installment Order. What little argument the Doucases do provide is vague,
referencing only “upstream distributions” from a Goldman Sachs account and “other
accounts that were or could be used” to make payments here. Second, even
-3-
assuming that the funds involved in the preliminary injunction are the only available
funds to make payments here, the injunction prevents only the transfer of greater
than $250,000. The Doucases have provided no reason why they cannot make
payments in the amount of either $60,630 or $80,840 on time when either of those
amounts would fall well below the transfer threshold of the injunction. Thus, on the
showing presented, the Doucases have not established that changed financial
circumstances warrant modification of the Installment Order.
II.
CONTEMPT
As to contempt, the Doucases are correct that the United States has not
properly sought such an order and the court will deny that request. Contempt
sanctions require the alleged contemnor be given appropriate due process, including
adequate notice and a fair opportunity to be heard. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v.
Hyatt, 621 F.3d 687, 694 (7th Cir. 2010). Due process concerns are generally
satisfied by use of the procedures provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
specifically Rules 6 and 7. Id. at 695. More specifically, Rule 7 requires that a
request for a court order be made by motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). The United
States has failed to request its relief by motion in this case, and the court will thus
deny the request without further examining contempt procedures. Accordingly, the
court will also deny the United States’ request for attorneys’ fees related to
contempt, as it has not entered such an order.
-4-
III.
CONCLUSION
In sum, because the Doucases have failed to make a sufficient showing of
changed financial circumstances, the court will deny the request to modify the
Installment Order. The past-due payments remain owing, and the August payment
remains due on August 16, 2011. However, the court will not grant the United
States’ request for entry of an order for contempt without a proper motion. Given
that the court will deny modification of the Installment Order, further relief from this
court is left to the government to pursue as it wishes. The court will also deny the
Doucases request for an account of the balance due as moot in light of their
amended reply, which the court grants leave to file.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Reply
(Docket #43) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time
(Docket #40) be and the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, W isconsin, this 10th day of August, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge
-5-
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?