Harold B. Rotte v. United States
701 F. App'x 894
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rotte, pro se, sued the United States/IRS claiming wrongful filing of a tax lien and asserting causes of action including deceit, abuse of process, and statutory claims under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7432 and 7433.
- The district court dismissed the deceit and abuse-of-process claims and granted summary judgment to the government on the § 7432 and § 7433 claims.
- Rotte moved for reconsideration; the district court denied the motion.
- On appeal Rotte argued the IRS wrongfully filed the lien, he was denied counsel, and the court should have urged/compelled settlement.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed dismissal for sovereign immunity de novo and reviewed summary judgment de novo, applying FTCA and the standards for §§ 7432/7433 actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deceit and abuse-of-process claims can proceed against the U.S. | Rotte argued the IRS committed deceit and abused process by filing the lien. | United States invoked sovereign immunity and FTCA exceptions. | Dismissed: FTCA bars claims for deceit and abuse of process; sovereign immunity applies. |
| Whether IRS knowingly or negligently failed to release a lien (26 U.S.C. § 7432) | Rotte argued the IRS wrongly filed/miscalculated and failed to release the lien timely. | IRS showed it did not knowingly or negligently fail to release the lien under § 7432. | Summary judgment for government: Rotte failed to prove knowledge or negligence. |
| Whether IRS collection conduct violated 26 U.S.C. § 7433 | Rotte argued improper collection procedures and wrong lien filing. | Government argued Rotte did not allege failure to follow a specific tax-code provision required by § 7433. | Summary judgment for government: Rotte did not allege violation of a specific statutory provision. |
| Whether denial of reconsideration, lack of counsel, or failure to compel settlement warranted relief | Rotte argued the court erred in denying reconsideration, he was entitled to appointed counsel, and the court should have suggested/compelled settlement. | Government and court noted no new evidence, no manifest error, no right to counsel, and no authority to force IRS settlement. | Denial affirmed: no new evidence/manifest error; no right to appointed counsel or basis to compel settlement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Motta ex rel. A.M. v. United States, 717 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard for sovereign-immunity waiver and FTCA scope)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941) (United States is immune from suit unless waiver is unequivocal)
- Brooks v. County Commission, 446 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard and review)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate abandonment where issues are not meaningfully argued)
- Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012) (same—failure to meaningfully challenge issues is abandonment)
- Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (standards for motions for reconsideration: new evidence or manifest error required)
- Bass v. Perrin, 170 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 1999) (no right to appointed counsel in most civil cases; exceptional circumstances required)
AFFIRMED.