At page 292 Distinguishing title interest from lien interest under statute12 citing cases“congress in 2410 did not consent to suits against the united states where the united states claims a title interest as distinguished from a lien interest.”
- Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2007).publishedCongress expressly limited waiver of sovereign immunity under § 2410 to actions where the United States “has or claims a mortgage or other lien.” And we have repeatedly held that “Congress in § 2410 did not consent to suits against the Uni…
- Dunn & Black Ps v. United States, No. 05-35766 (9th Cir. July 10, 2007).publishedAt the same time, however, we “have strictly limited the reach and application of this statute.” Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531 , 538 (9th Cir. 1991). [9] Congress expressly limited waiver of sovereign immu- nity under § 2410 to act…
- Watson v. Chessman, 362 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (S.D. Cal. 2005).publishedSee Old Orchard Bank & Trust Co. v. Rodriguez, 654 F.Supp. 108, 112 (N.D.Ill.1987); Bertie’s Apple Farms v. U.S., 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir.1973).
- Koehler v. USA, 153 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 1998).publishedFor example, in Cummings v. United States, we held that § 2410(a) does not apply where the United States claims only.a tide interest in the property rather than a lien interest. 648 F.2d 289, 292 (5th Cir.1981); accord United Sand & Gravel…
- Felkel v. United States, 861 F. Supp. 507 (D.S.C. 1994).publishedIf the Government has sold the property prior to the filing of the [§ 2410] suit, and no longer claims any interest in the property, § 2410 does not apply”); Elias v. Connett, supra at 527 (9th Cir.1990), citing Bank of Hemet v. United Sta…
- Mead Corp. & Mead Digit. Sys., Inc. v. United States of Am., 652 F.2d 1050 (D.C. Cir. 1981).publishedSection 2410 grants jurisdiction only where the United States has a “mortgage or other lien,” as opposed to a title interest, see Bertie’s Apple Valley Farms v. United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir. 1973).
- Bonan v. Talandis, 108 Misc. 2d 298 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1980).publishedDefendant still continues to claim full title to the property. ‘Congress in § 2410 did not consent to suits against the United States where the United States claims a title interest as distinguished from a lien interest.’ Bertie’s Apple Va…
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 490 F. Supp. 405 (D.D.C. 1980).publishedBertie’s Apple Valley Farms v. United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir. 1973).
- Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. United States, 445 F. Supp. 683 (M.D. Tenn. 1978).published“Congress in § 2410 did not consent to suits against the United States where the United States claims a title interest as distinguished from a lien interest.” Bertie’s Apple Valley Farms v. United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir. 1973).
- Kimberly Assocs., an Idaho Ltd. P'ship v. United States, 261 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001).publishedSee, e.g., Bertie’s Apple Valley Farms v. United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (finding § 2410 inapplicable where the United States claims a title interest, rather than a mortgage or other lien interest).
Show 2 more citing cases
- Richard C. Hughes Joan C. Hughes v. United States of Am. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Richard C. Hughes Joan C. Hughes v. Comm'r of Irs United States of Am. Steven R. High Lena High United Sav. Bank, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1992).publishedSee, e.g., Bertie's Apple Valley Farms v. United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir.1973). 37 Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction under § 2410 to evaluate the procedural validity of the tax liens that had been placed on the r…
- Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1992).publishedSee, e.g., Bertie’s Apple Valley Farms v. United States, 476 F.2d 291, 292 (9th Cir.1973).
Other citing cases
- David M. Cummings v. United States of Am. & Colonel James M. Sigler, 648 F.2d 289 (5th Cir. 1981).published
v.
UNITED STATES of America Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
Plaintiffs sued in state court to quiet title to real and personal property. The government successfully petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 1444 to remove to the district court where the action was dismissed.
The district court dismissed this action as one against the United States to which it had not consented. The United States is immune from suit except where it consents. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941). Plaintiff contends that Congress has given its consent to suit in this case in 28 U.S.C. § 2410, which provides in relevant part:
“ . . . the United States may be named a party in any civil action or suit in any district court, or in any State court having jurisdiction of the subject matter (1) to quiet title to . real or personal property on which the United States has or claims a mortgage or other lien.”
The United States does not claim a mortgage or other lien interest in the property involved herein. Rather, the United States claims title to the property, pursuant to an order of the Referee in Bankruptcy for the District of Idaho, who confirmed a sale by the trustee to the Small Business Administration. Congress in § 2410 did not consent to suits against the United States where the United States claims a title interest as distinguished from a lien interest. See Wells v. Long, 68 F.Supp. 671 (D.Idaho 1946) aff’d on other grounds, 162 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1947).
The order of the district court is affirmed.