United States of America v. Martinez et al, No. 2:2019cv01986 - Document 65 (D. Nev. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER Granting 64 Unopposed Motion to Effectuate Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/5/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

Download PDF

United States of America v. Martinez et al 1 Doc. 65 DAVID A. HUBBERT Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2 3 4 5 6 E. CARMEN RAMIREZ Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 Washington, D.C. 20044 202-616-2885 (v) 202-307-0054 (f) E.Carmen.Ramirez@usdoj.gov western.taxcivil@usdoj.gov 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 JEFFREY A. MARTINEZ, individually, and as Trustee of the Martinez Family Trust; DOLORES M. MARTINEZ, individually and as Trustee for the Martinez Family Trust; THE MARTINEZ FAMILY TRUST; MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. (NV20041370692); MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES INC. (NV20181033912); SIERRA MORTGAGE CORPORATION; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE; CHASE MORTGAGE COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; RHODES RANCH ASSOCIATION; and REPUBLIC SILVER STATE INC., DBA, REPUBLIC SERVICES, 21 22 Defendants. 23 Case No.: 2:19-cv-1986-GMN-DJA UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EFFECTUATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 24 25 1 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff, the United States of America, hereby moves for approval of a stipulation between the United States and defendants Jeffrey and Dolores Martinez and to enter judgment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 pursuant to that stipulation. In 2021, the parties entered a settlement agreement that resolved most of the United States’ claims, and the Court entered a partial judgment pursuant to that agreement. (See ECF No. 55). The parties have now reached a second agreement to resolve the remaining claim. Pursuant to the second agreement, the United States hereby moves the Court to approve the stipulation attached as Exhibit 1, and enter the proposed judgment attached as Exhibit 2. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 8 BACKGROUND 9 The United States sought money judgments against the Martinezes, and against two 10 corporate entities associated with them, Martinez & Associates, Inc. (Nevada Business ID 11 NV20041370692) (“Martinez & Associates I”) and Martinez & Associates, Inc. (Nevada 12 Business ID NV20181033912) (“Martinez & Associates II”), for various federal tax liabilities. 13 The United States also sought to foreclose its tax liens against certain real property (the “Subject 14 Property”) to help satisfy the liabilities. The Subject Property is located at 262 Cliff Valley 15 Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148, and is described in further detail in the Complaint. It was 16 putatively held in a trust, i.e., the Martinez Family Trust (the “Trust”), which the United States 17 named as a defendant. 18 The United States also named as defendants other entities that might assert a lien or other 19 claim against the Subject Property, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403(b) (“Action to enforce lien or to 20 subject property to payment of tax”). That way, those parties’ claims to the property (if any) 21 could be adjudicated if and when the Court determined that the property should be foreclosed. 22 There will be no need to adjudicate any claims for most of these defendants. One, 23 Fidelity National Title, disclaimed any interest. (See ECF No. 7). Defendant Republic Silver 24 25 2 State Inc. (“Republic”), a trash removal company, has been served but has not appeared, and the Clerk has made an entry of default against it. (ECF No. 63). The United States determined that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 it had erred in naming the remaining initial defendants, Nevada Mortgagee Assistance Company and the Cooper Castle Law firm, and the Clerk terminated them from the case on March 9, 2020. (See Dkt. 21 (notice of voluntary dismissal)). The Court has already approved a stipulation concerning claims by two other defendants, JP Morgan Chase Bank National Association and Chase Bank National Association (together, the “Chase defendants”), at least as against the United States. The Chase defendants control the mortgage loan that was initially issued by defendant Sierra Mortgage Corporation. They reached a stipulation with the United States resolving lien priority as between them and the United States. (See ECF No. 20 (Order approving stipulation)). Thus, it appears that only a few non-tax claims may require adjudication. Defendant the Rhodes Ranch Association, the HOA for the Subject Property, answered the complaint. (ECF No. 4). After the Complaint was filed, another potential defendant, Discover Bank, filed a lien notice against the Martinezes. It does not appear that Discover Bank’s recently recorded lien could trump the longstanding tax liens, but 26 U.S.C. § 7403 requires the United States to name other lienholders. The United States thus has a pending motion to amend the Complaint to include Discover Bank. (ECF No. 62). Finally, the United States understands that Rhodes Ranch may claim that any liens for unpaid HOA dues have “super-priority” under state law. Thus, if the United States proceeds to foreclosure, the Court may be called upon to adjudicate the relative priority of any HOA liens vis-à-vis the other liens. That said, there is no need to pay out claims to any of the named defendants at present. As discussed below, the United States would have no need to foreclose on the Subject Property if the Martinezes comply with the settlement agreement. 23 24 25 3 1 THE 2022 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, STIPULATION, AND PROPOSED JUDGMENT 2 Under the prior settlement agreement, the Martinezes and their businesses consented to 3 money judgments for various tax liabilities. However, that agreement did not dispose of the 4 Ninth Claim for Relief in the Complaint, which seeks to foreclose on the Subject Property. 5 Instead, the United States agreed not to seek to foreclose or otherwise collect against the Subject 6 Property, if the Martinezes made a substantial payment against their liabilities and complied with 7 certain other requirements. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) allows courts to enter partial judgments when a 8 suit “presents more than one claim for relief … or when multiple parties are involved … if the 9 court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” The Court thus entered a 10 partial judgment that did not resolve the foreclosure claim. (See ECF No. 55 (amended 11 judgment)). (The initial judgment was amended to correct a minor error.)) 12 The Martinezes did not make the payment called for in the first settlement agreement. 13 However, given the exigencies of the Covid-19 pandemic, the United States was hesitant to 14 pursue the foreclosure claim without exploring other alternatives. The parties continued to 15 negotiate and have now reached a second agreement, the 2022 agreement, that would resolve that 16 claim. 17 Under the 2022 agreement, the United States agrees not to foreclose if the Martinezes 18 make a series of payments to the United States. The agreement provides them the option of 19 selling the property themselves to raise the money to make the payments, rather than the United 20 States conducting a forced tax sale, if they cannot or choose not to use funds from other sources. 21 If the Martinezes make payments for six months, the United States anticipates asking that the 22 case be administratively closed, or dismissing the foreclosure claim, as appropriate. If the 23 Martinezes sell the property, the claims of other lienholders would be addressed at the property’s 24 closing, as would be the case in any private real estate transaction in the usual course. 25 4 If the Martinezes fail to comply with the 2022 agreement, such as by not making the payments or not selling the property according to the terms of the agreement, the United States 1 2 3 4 5 maintains the right to sell the property. The Martinezes have agreed to the entry of an order of sale. (see Ex. 1 ¶ 3 (stipulation to entry of order of sale)). In the event of non-compliance, and pursuant to the 2022 agreement, the United States would submit a proposed order of sale for the Court’s approval. The proposed order would provide for adjudicating the other defendants’ claims, if any remain at that time. 6 7 8 // 9 // 10 // 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 25 5 1 WHEREFORE, the United States requests that the Court approve the stipulation attached 2 at Exhibit 1 (proposed order below) and separately enter the proposed partial judgment at Exhibit 3 2, resolving the remaining claim against the Martinezes. 4 Signed this 26th day of August, 2022. 5 DAVID A. HUBBERT Deputy Assistant Attorney General 6 7 /s/ E. Carmen Ramirez E. CARMEN RAMIREZ Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 Washington, D.C. 20044 202-353-1857 (v) 202-307-0054 (f) E.Carmen.Ramirez@usdoj.gov western.taxcivil@usdoj.gov 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED: Oct 5, 2022 15 16 _______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that service of the foregoing is made August 26, 2022, via 3 the Court’s ECF system to all current parties who have appeared electronically. The United 4 States is also sending this motion to the persons listed below, via U.S. Mail. The mailing may 5 take place the next business day. 6 7 Jeffrey Martinez 262 Cliff Valley Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89148 8 9 Dolores Martinez 262 Cliff Valley Dr. Las Vegas, NV 89148 10 11 12 Republic Silver State Inc., dba Republic Services c/o CT Corporation System 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200 Carson City, NV 89701 13 14 15 Discover Bank c/o CT Corporation System 701 S. Carson St. Suite 200 Carson City, NV 89701 16 17 18 19 20 /s/ E. Carmen Ramirez E. CARMEN RAMIREZ Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice 21 22 23 24 25 7 EXHIBIT 1 1 The United States of America, and defendants Jeffrey and Dolores Martinez, individually 2 and in their capacities as trustees for the Martinez Family Trust, and as representatives of 3 Martinez & Associates, Inc. (Nevada Business ID NV20041370692) ("Martinez & Associates 4 I") and Martinez & Associates, Inc. (Nevada Business ID NV20181033912) ("Martinez & 5 Associates II"), previously reached a partial settlement in this matter, as reflected in the 6 Amended Partial Judgment at ECF No. 55. The United States and Mr. and Ms. Martinez have 7 now reached a second settlement updating the terms of their initial agreement and resolving 8 certain matters left open by that agreement. In light of their second agreement, they stipulate to 9 the terms below. BACKGROUND 10 11 The United States sought a judgment against the Martinezes, and against two 12 corporations, Martinez & Associates I and Martinez & Associates II, associated with them, for 13 various federal tax liabilities. The United States also sought to foreclose its tax liens against 14 certain real property (the "Subject Property") to help satisfy the judgments. The Subject 15 Property is located at 262 Cliff Valley Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148, and is described in 16 further detail in the Complaint. It was putatively held in a trust, i.e., the Martinez Family Trust 17 (the "Trust"), which the United States named as a defendant. 18 Under the initial settlement, the United States and Mr. and Ms. Martinez agreed to a 19 judgment against the Martinezes for various federal tax liabilities. (ECF No. 55 at 2-3 ). They 20 also agreed to judgment for the United States on its claims that to the extent the Trust held title to 21 the Subject Property, it was as Mr. and Ms. Martinez's nominee, and/or that Mr. and Ms. 22 Martinez had fraudulently conveyed or transferred the Subject Property to the Trust, such that 23 the transfer or conveyance should be avoided or set aside. However, the settlement and the 24 resulting partial judgment did not address the United States' claim for foreclosure on the Subject 25 Property. 2 EXHIBIT A 1 DAVID A. HUBBERT Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2 3 4 5 6 E. CARMEN RAMIREZ Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 Washington, D.C. 20044 202-616-2885 (v) 202-307-0054 (f) E.Carmen.Ramirez@usdoj.gov western.taxcivil@usdoj.gov 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 JEFFREY A. MARTINEZ, individually, and as Trustee of the Martinez Family Trust; DOLORES M. MARTINEZ, individually and as Trustee for the Martinez Family Trust; THE MARTINEZ FAMILY TRUST; MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. (NV20041370692); MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES INC. (NV20181033912); SIERRA MORTGAGE CORPORATION; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE; CHASE MORTGAGE COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; RHODES RANCH ASSOCIATION; and REPUBLIC SILVER STATE INC., DBA, REPUBLIC SERVICES, 21 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 1 Case No.: 2:19-cv-1986-GMN-DJA [PROPOSED] ORDER ALLOWING FORECLOSURE OF LIENS AND FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BY RECEIVER ON THE UNITED STATES’ BEHALF 1 Before the Court is the United States’ Motion for Order Allowing Foreclosure of Liens 2 and Sale of Property. The Motion is hereby GRANTED. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 7402 and § 3 7403, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 4 1. This Order pertains to the real property (the “Subject Property”) commonly 5 described as 262 Cliff Valley Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89148, and legally described as: 6 Parcel 1: Lot 169 in Block 5 of Amended Final Map of Rhodes Ranch Phase 1, as shown by map thereof on file in Book 82 of Plats, Page 48 in the Office of the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada. 7 8 11 Parcel 2: A non-exclusive easement of use access and enjoyment in and to the “Common Area” as further defined in that Certain Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Rhodes Ranch, a Planned Community, recorded August 13, 1997, in Book 970813 as Document No. 01479, of Official Records, Clark County, Nevada. 12 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 176-08-310-113. 9 10 13 2. The Subject Property has putatively been held in the name of the Martinez Family 14 Trust. However, pursuant to the Amended Partial Judgment, the transfer of the Subject Property 15 from the Martinezes to the trust was a fraudulent transfer or conveyance and has been avoided or 16 set aside. (ECF No. 55 at ¶ 9). Alternatively, to the extent the trust holds title to the Subject 17 Property, it is as the Martinezes’ nominee. (Id. at ¶ 8). 18 3. The United States has valid and subsisting federal tax liens on all property and 19 rights to property of Jeffrey A. Martinez and Dolores M. Martinez, including the Subject 20 Property, arising from the assessments described in the United States’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) 21 and Amended Partial Judgment. (ECF No. 55). 22 4. 26 U.S.C. § 7403 entitles the United States to enforce its liens against the Subject 23 Property in order to apply the proceeds towards the tax liabilities at issue in this suit. 24 25 2 1 2 5. The United States’ federal tax liens against the Subject Property are hereby foreclosed. 3 6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Timothy Kimball is APPOINTED, pursuant to 4 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a) and § 7403(d), to act as the receiver to enforce the tax liens at issue in this 5 case according to the terms set out below. 6 7. Mr. Kimball, License #S.57126, of The Kimball Team, Urban Nest, 8475 W. 7 Sunset Las Vegas, NV 89113, (702)-290-8465 (the “Receiver”), is directed to take custody 8 immediately and arrange the sale of the Subject Property, subject to approval by this Court. 9 8. The Receiver is directed to take possession of the Subject Property, including all 10 improvements, buildings, fixtures, materials, contents, and appurtenances thereon, to preserve 11 and protect the value of that property, to put it into saleable condition, and to arrange for the sale 12 of that property, free and clear of any rights, titles, claims, or interests of any of the parties to this 13 action. 14 15 16 9. The Receiver’s sale of the Subject Property shall occur according to the following terms: a. The Receiver shall have the authority to, and is directed to, arrange for the 17 sale of the Subject Property subject to approval by this Court. The initial 18 listing price may be set by the United States in consultation with the 19 Receiver. If lack of buyer interest or buyer feedback indicates that the 20 listing price is too high, the United States, in consultation with the 21 Receiver, may lower the listing price. The United States, in consultation 22 with the Receiver, shall have the exclusive authority to decide what 23 counter-offers, if any, to make in response to an offer. The United States 24 shall have the exclusive authority to decide whether to accept an offer or 25 counter-offer for the property, conditioned on Court approval. The terms 3 1 of any purchase agreement shall include the balance of the purchase price 2 paid in cash or certified check at closing, and shall include an earnest 3 money deposit, in an amount to be approved by the United States, 4 forfeitable upon the purchaser’s failure to perform. The Receiver shall 5 ensure that the deposit is made into the court’s registry, or into escrow 6 with further disbursements to be made by the escrow agent as authorized 7 by the Court through this order and any future order(s). The buyer shall be 8 responsible for all escrow fees. Any forfeited earnest money proceeds 9 shall be distributed first to the Receiver to the extent of expenses incurred 10 by the Receiver in accordance with paragraph 9(b) of this order, with the 11 remainder to be deposited directly into the court’s registry, or into escrow, 12 with the escrow agent responsible for transmitting the funds, including any 13 funds remaining from the initial deposit, to the court’s registry, for further 14 adjudication, except to the extent the United States, in its exclusive 15 discretion, agrees that such monies may be used for maintenance, repairs, 16 and/or improvements. A purchase agreement may include other 17 customary and reasonable terms in the discretion of the United States, in 18 consultation with the Receiver. The closing shall not occur until after 19 the sale has been approved by further order of this Court. At closing, 20 the purchaser or purchasers shall receive a quitclaim deed to the Subject 21 Property, executed by the Receiver that shall be free and clear of the 22 interests or other claims of all parties to this action with the same to attach 23 to the proceeds, with the order of priority to be determined by any 24 stipulations between the claimants (subject to the Court’s approval) and 25 4 1 such further order concerning the validity and priority of claims as is 2 appropriate. 3 b. The Receiver shall have all of the rights and powers necessary to fulfill his 4 obligations under this Order, specifically including, but not necessarily 5 limited to, the power to enter the Subject Property, to inspect the Subject 6 Property, to advertise the sale of the Subject Property, to show the Subject 7 Property to prospective buyers, to take any action reasonably necessary to 8 protect and preserve the value of the Subject Property prior to sale, and to 9 put the Subject Property into saleable condition, including making 10 expenditure of funds that are first approved by the United States for 11 reasonable and necessary repairs, maintenance, and minor improvements, 12 including, but not limited to, the purchase of property and liability 13 insurance. 14 c. All persons occupying the Subject Property shall leave and vacate 15 permanently, each taking with them his or her personal property (but 16 leaving all improvements, buildings, fixtures, and appurtenances) when 17 leaving and vacating. 18 d. If, after 30 days from the date of this Order, any person has failed or 19 refused to vacate the Subject Property, the Receiver is authorized to 20 coordinate with the United States Marshal’s Office, or the Clark County 21 Sheriff’s Office, or the Clark County Constable to take all actions that are 22 reasonably necessary to have those persons ejected. The United States 23 Marshals Service and/or the Clark County Sheriff’s Office and/or the 24 Clark County Constable are authorized and directed to take any and all 25 necessary actions, including but not limited to the use of reasonable force, 5 1 to enter and remain on the premises, which includes, but is not limited to, 2 the land, the buildings, vehicles, and any structures located thereon, for the 3 purpose of executing this Order. The United States Marshals Service 4 and/or the Clark County Sheriff’s Office and/or the Clark County 5 Constable are further authorized and directed to arrest and/or evict from 6 the premises any and all persons who obstruct, attempt to obstruct, or 7 interfere or attempt to interfere, in any way with the execution of this 8 Order. Any personal property remaining on the Subject Property after 30 9 days from the date of this Order is deemed forfeited and abandoned, and 10 the Receiver is authorized to dispose of it in any manner seen fit, including 11 sale, in which case the proceeds of that sale are to be applied first to the 12 costs and expenses of sale and the balance shall be paid into the Court for 13 further distribution. The United States may authorize the Receiver to 14 consult with various experts on the sale of contents inside the property, 15 including art, furnishings, vehicles, and equipment. Nothing in this Order 16 shall be construed to restrict or otherwise interfere with the Internal 17 Revenue Service’s ability to administratively collect against personal 18 property, in accordance with the law. 19 e. The Receiver shall be compensated from the proceeds of the sale of the 20 Subject Property (a) in an amount equal to five-percent (5%) of the gross 21 sale proceeds from which the Receiver must pay any buyer broker 22 commission; (b) for his reasonable and necessary expenditures under 23 paragraph 9(b) above (i.e., for repairs, maintenance, minor improvements, 24 and/or insurance) that were first approved by the United States; and (c) 25 with respect to any consultations concerning the sale of personal property 6 1 that were first approved by the United States under paragraph 9(d), above, 2 the Receiver is authorized to charge $50 per hour for these services, 3 limited to no more than 20 hours per month. The Receiver shall receive 4 payment of the above-described compensation from a distribution from 5 the proceeds of a sale approved by the Court at closing, as the United 6 States’ cost and expenses of sale, and before any net sale proceeds are 7 used to pay any other claims of the parties to this action. 8 f. 9 Net proceeds shall be deposited with the Court unless directed otherwise by the Court. The distribution shall be first to the Receiver and/or the 10 United States and Internal Revenues Service for the costs and expenses of 11 the sale. The distribution of the remaining proceeds should be determined 12 either through stipulation between the remaining parties and approved by 13 the Court, or, if all parties seeking to make a claim cannot reach an 14 agreement, by order of the Court after submission of briefs by the 15 remaining parties setting forth their arguments as to how the remaining 16 proceeds should be distributed. 17 10. All the defendants in this case, and all other persons acting in concert with, or on 18 their behalf, are hereby restrained and enjoined from doing anything that tends to interfere with 19 or reduce the value or marketability of the Subject Property, or from interfering with the 20 Receiver, or with the Receiver’s efforts to comply with his obligations under this Order. 21 Violation of this paragraph shall be deemed a contempt of court and punishable as such. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 7 1 2 Dated this ____ day of May, 2022. IT IS SO ORDERED: 3 4 5 _________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 EXHIBIT 2 1 DAVID A. HUBBERT Deputy Assistant Attorney General 2 3 4 5 6 E. CARMEN RAMIREZ Trial Attorney, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 683 Washington, D.C. 20044 202-616-2885 (v) 202-307-0054 (f) E.Carmen.Ramirez@usdoj.gov western.taxcivil@usdoj.gov 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 JEFFREY A. MARTINEZ, individually, and as Trustee of the Martinez Family Trust; DOLORES M. MARTINEZ, individually and as Trustee for the Martinez Family Trust; THE MARTINEZ FAMILY TRUST; MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES, INC. (NV20041370692); MARTINEZ & ASSOCIATES INC. (NV20181033912); SIERRA MORTGAGE CORPORATION; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE; CHASE MORTGAGE COMPANY; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; RHODES RANCH ASSOCIATION; and REPUBLIC SILVER STATE INC., DBA, REPUBLIC SERVICES, 21 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 1 Case No.: 2:19-cv-1986-GMN-DJA [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT AGAINST JEFFREY A. MARTINEZ AND DOLORES M. MARTINEZ INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES FOR THE MARTINEZ FAMILY TRUST This is a federal tax dispute. As discussed below, the United States sought judgments against taxpayers Jeffrey and Dolores Martinez and two corporations associated with them for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 certain delinquent tax liabilities. The United States also sought to foreclose tax liens on certain real property to help satisfy the judgments, and therefore named as parties several entities that might make a claim to the property. The Complaint also alleged that to the extent the real property was held in a trust associated with the Martinezes, the Martinez Family Trust (the “Trust”), the Trust held the property as the Martinezes’ nominee and/or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance. The United States and the Martinezes reached a stipulation to judgment on certain claims for relief. That stipulation was approved and a partial judgment entered, which was subsequently amended to correct a typographical error. The operative judgment, ECF No. 55, awarded monetary relief to the United States and against Mr. and Ms. Martinez for various federal tax liabilities. (ECF No. 55 at 2-3 ). It also granted judgment to the United States on its claims that to the extent the Trust held title to the property, it was as Mr. and Ms. Martinez’s nominee, and/or that Mr. and Ms. Martinez had fraudulently conveyed or transferred the real property to the Trust, such that the transfer or conveyance should be avoided or set aside. However, the partial judgment did not address the United States’ claim for foreclosure on the property. However, Mr. and Ms. Martinez and the United States have informed the Court that they have entered into a separate settlement agreement, and the United States has submitted a motion to approve a stipulation as to judgment and to enter judgment. In light of the motion, and based on the record before the Court, the Court has determined that there is no just cause reason for delay, to enter a second partial judgment on the remaining claim in this case as described below. It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The 2022 stipulation between the United States and Mr. and Ms. Martinez is APPROVED. 24 25 2 1 2. The United States is granted judgment on its Ninth Claim for relief, as articulated 2 in its Complaint (see ECF No. 1 at 25), such that the United States is entitled to foreclose the tax 3 liens described in the Complaint on the property at issue in this suit (the “Subject Property”). 4 The Subject Property is commonly known as 262 Cliff Valley Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89148, 5 and is more particularly described as: 6 Parcel 1: 7 8 Lot 169 in Block 5 of Amended Final Map of Rhodes Ranch Phase 1, as shown by map thereof on file in Book 82 of Plats, Page 48 in the Office of the County Recorder of Clark County, Nevada. 9 Parcel 2: 10 A non-exclusive easement of use access and enjoyment in and to the “Common Area” as further defined in that Certain Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Rhodes Ranch, a Planned Community, recorded August 13, 1997, in Book 970813 as Document No. 01479, of Official Records, Clark County, Nevada. Assessor’s Parcel No.: 176-08-310-113. 11 12 13 14 15 3. In light of this judgment, the United States shall be entitled to sell the Subject Property pursuant to a separate Order of Sale, subject to paragraph 4, below. 4. Pursuant to the terms of the 2022 stipulation, the United States has agreed to defer 16 or forego the sale of the Subject Property if the Martinezes make certain payments. However, 17 the United States retains the right to sell the Subject Property at any time, subject to the terms of 18 the stipulation, and may submit a proposed Order of Sale for the Court’s approval in the future, 19 in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 20 Oct 5 2022 Dated ________ 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED: 23 24 _____________________ United States District Judge 25 3

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.