United States v. Antiques Limited Partnership, 760 F.3d 668

Background

Government sued Zabkas and their controlled partnerships to enforce tax assessments and liens on partnership and personal assets.
District court found the assessments and liens valid and sought appointment of a receiver to liquidate assets to satisfy the taxes.
A clerk-entered judgment stated victory and CASE TERMINATED, but the case had not been finally resolved.
Zabkas appealed, then additional appeals followed related to the receiver’s appointment and postappointment collection actions.
The court held the June 2012 purported judgment not final, but the receiver appointment finalized the merits and enabled postjudgment collection.
Fourth and fifth appeals challenged postjudgment orders (property sales and receiver fees) and were deemed interlocutory and outside appellate jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction over the receiver-appointment appeal	Zabkas argued for appellate review of appointment orders.	Defendants claimed lack of final judgment before review.	We have jurisdiction over the receiver-appointment appeal.
Whether the June 2012 judgment was a final, appealable order	Judgment finalized the outcome and permitted appeal.	Judgment was not final without completion of the receivership.	The June 2012 entry was not a final judgment.
Whether the September 2012 order appointing a receiver is immediately appealable	Appointment order is an interlocutory appealable order.	The order directed to propose a receiver, not the appointment itself.	Interlocutory appealable only as part of the final-judgment framework via the appointment.
Whether the August 2013 property-sales order is within appellate jurisdiction	Sale orders relate to winding up receivership and may be appealed.	Such orders are interlocutory and outside jurisdiction.	The August 2013 sale order is an unappealable interlocutory order.
Whether interim receiver-fee order is within appellate jurisdiction	Fees are appealable as part of postjudgment collection.	Interim fees are not appealable until final judgment.	Interim compensation order is unappealable at that stage.

Key Cases Cited

Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. v. Lefton Iron & Metal Co., 570 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2009) (finality in postjudgment contexts matters for appealability)
Buchanan v. United States, 82 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1996) (clarifies finality and appealability standards)
In re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation, 22 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 1994) (distinguishes final judgments from postjudgment proceedings)
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Ruggi ero, 994 F.2d 1221 (7th Cir. 1993) (postjudgment collection proceedings and appealability)
Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Express Freight Lines, Inc., 971 F.2d 5 (7th Cir. 1992) (recognizes limits on interlocutory appeals in receivership contexts)
Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (appeals court may review final orders arising from retained jurisdiction)
Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass’n, 594 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2010) (final judgments and postjudgment orders)
Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Walsh, 618 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2010) (limits on appellate reach over receivership orders)
Plata v. Schwarzenegger, 603 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010) (limitations on interlocutory appeals in complex proceedings)
SEC v. Black, 163 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1998) (interlocutory sale and wind-down of receiverships)
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Brockrim, Inc., 87 F.3d 1487 (1st Cir. 1996) (standards for winding up receiverships)
United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274 (U.S. 2002) (lien attachment to partnership ownership interests)
United States v. Worley, 213 F.2d 509 (6th Cir. 1954) (enforcement of liens against partnership owners)