United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
S. VAN BOKKELEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
United States claims Cynthia Gerard owes taxes in connection
with her business. (Compl., DE 1, Count I.) The United States
further claims federal liens securing most of these
liabilities attach to the real property at which Cynthia
resides. (Id., Count II.) The United States asks the
Court to enter judgment for the tax liabilities and to force
the sale of the real property to satisfy the liens.
United States moved for summary judgment. For the following
reasons, the Court denies this motion.
and the Gerard Defendants essentially agree to the following
facts, except as indicated.
and Cynthia Gerard, husband and wife, bought residential real
property (“Property”) in 1990. They owned the
Property as tenants by the entireties.
owned and operated a limited liability company as its sole
member from 2003 through 2008. Cynthia did not ask the IRS to
treat the company as a corporation rather than a sole
proprietorship, so the company was a “disregarded
entity” under the applicable regulations, and was
treated in the same manner as a sole proprietorship for
federal tax purposes. (Compl., DE 1, ¶ 6; Answer, DE 4,
and her company incurred employment and unemployment tax
liabilities, some of which remain unpaid. (Compl., DE 1,
¶ 11.) Plaintiff and the Gerard Defendants disagree
regarding the amount of unpaid taxes. (Defs.' Mem.
Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., DE 33 at 5-7.) The parties agree
Robert is not personally liable for these unpaid taxes.
claims the vast majority of the tax liabilities gave rise to
liens, which attached to the Property. (Compl., DE 1, Count
2012, Robert and Cynthia conveyed the Property to Robert,
individually. The Gerards claim they transferred the Property
in this manner on the advice of former counsel, given
Cynthia's debilitating brain aneurism and the need for
Robert to manage her affairs and assets. (Defs.' Mem.
Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., DE 33 at 4.)
claimed in its Motion for Summary Judgment that this transfer
was fraudulent, but withdrew this claim due to the lack of
its inclusion in the complaint. (Pl.'s Reply, DE 36 at
parties dispute other factual issues related to the nature of
the ownership interests in the property over time, related to
the nature of any consideration exchanged for the transfer of
the Property to Robert individually, related to the value of
the Property, and related to the proper values of
disbursements from any sale of the Property.
motion for summary judgment must be granted “if the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Rule 56(c) further
requires the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time
for discovery, against a party “who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element