United States vs. Williamson, No. 07-2017 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS August 9, 2007 FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOH N S. W ILLIAM SON ; NA NC Y L. W ILLIAM SON; GA RRETT JAM ES W ILLIAM SON; DA VID A ND REW W ILLIAM SON; JOHN GREGORY W ILLIAM SON; DEBORAH KRUHM , No. 07-2017 (D.C. No. CIV-04-885 BB/W DS) (D . N.M .) Defendants-Appellants. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before TA CH A, Chief Judge, M U RPH Y and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges. The United States brought suit in federal court to reduce the federal income tax assessments of John S. and Nancy L. W illiamson to judgment and to foreclose federal tax liens on two parcels of land owned either by John S. and Nancy L. * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. W illiamson, by their sons, Garrett, David and John G., or by John S. W illiamson s sister, Deborah Kruhm (collectively hereafter the W illiamsons ). 1 The district court dismissed the W illiamsons counterclaims and entered partial summary judgment in favor of the United States on the unpaid assessments and liens against one of the parcels. After a two-day trial to the court in which the court determined that the W illiamson sons held title to the real property as nominees of their parents, or, alternatively, that the property had been fraudulently conveyed, the court entered judgment foreclosing the liens on the other parcel. The district court also imposed sanctions against the W illiamsons under Rule 11. The W illiamsons filed a timely notice of appeal, and the United States has filed a motion for sanctions in this court to which the W illiamsons have replied. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. W e review the grant of summary judgment do novo, applying the same standard as that relied on by the district court. Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1225 (10th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine issues as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). As for the findings at trial, we review the court s 1 The Williamsons sons, appellants John G. W illiamson, David A. W illiamson, and Garrett J. W illiamson, along with John S. W illiamson s sister, appellant Deborah Kruhm, were joined as defendants on the ground that they might claim an interest in the properties in issue. -2- findings of fact for clear error, Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), and its conclusions of law de novo, Gledhill v. State Bank (In re Gledhill), 164 F.3d 1338, 1340 (10th Cir. 1999). W e review the district court s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions for an abuse of discretion. M asunaga v. Stoltenberg (In re Rex M ontis Silver Co.), 87 F.3d 435, 439 (10th Cir. 1996). After applying the above standards of review, we find no error in the decisions of the district court. W e therefore affirm all of the various orders on appeal as well as the district court s judgment for substantially the reasons stated by that court. The W illiamsons Notice of M otion and Appellants M otion for Preliminary Injunction and all other outstanding notices and motions heretofore filed by the W illiamsons are DENIED. The United States moves for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1912 and Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, arguing that the instant appeal is frivolous. The W illiamsons response to the motion for sanctions simply rehashes the discredited arguments in their opening brief, including the assertions that they are not subjects of the federal government because New M exico does not belong to the United States, that no statute at large creates specific liability for income taxes, that the income tax is unconstitutional, that the orders of the district court are invalid because they lack the seal of the court and the signature of the clerk, and that the case was never properly commenced. -3- The United States requests sanctions in the amount of $8,000, declaring under penalty of perjury that it expends an average of $11,000 in attorney salaries and other costs to defend a frivolous tax appeal. The United States further notes that a previous penalty of $1,500 did not deter the W illiamsons from filing the present appeal. W e agree that the instant action is a frivolous appeal deserving penalty and order the W illiamsons, jointly and severally, to pay the lump sum of $8,000 to the United States. W e remind John S. W illiamson and Nancy L. W illiamson that the filing restrictions imposed by this court in Williamson v. Sena, No. 06-2103, 2007 W L 1219426, at *2 (10th Cir. April 26, 2007), 2 are still in effect and will be enforced. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRM ED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court M ichael R. M urphy Circuit Judge 2 The filing restrictions were imposed after the W illiamsons filed their notice of appeal in this case. -4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
