United States v. GRIGGERS
5:22-cv-00310
M.D. Ga.Sep 17, 2025Background
- The Court entered a final judgment finding Ray E. Griggers II owes unpaid federal income taxes for 2002–2004, 2009, 2015, and 2017 and that the United States holds valid federal tax liens on his property, including 531 Greenwood Street, Barnesville, GA (the Greenwood Property).
- The final judgment authorized the United States to enforce its liens by moving for a judicial sale of the Greenwood Property.
- The United States moved for a Decree of Foreclosure and Order of Sale for the Greenwood Property; Griggers opposed only on timeliness/due-process grounds, not the proposed sale terms.
- Griggers contended the motion was premature because statutory windows for motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b), and the appellate timing rules had not expired, and that immediate foreclosure would deny meaningful judicial review.
- The Court concluded the motion was timely under 26 U.S.C. § 7403 and that a decree of sale was appropriate to finalize the case and provide a proper judgment subject to appeal or stay.
- The Court granted the motion and entered detailed foreclosure and sale procedures (PALS-directed sale by public auction/mail-in bid; notice, minimum bid, deposit, payment, confirmation, distribution priorities, vacatur, and preservation provisions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the United States' motion for a decree of foreclosure is premature | Motion is proper now to enforce established federal tax liens under 26 U.S.C. § 7403 and to proceed to sale | Motion is premature until post-judgment motion and appeal windows (Rule 59(e), 60(b), Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)) expire; immediate sale denies due process and meaningful review | Court held the motion is timely; sale decree may be necessary to complete final judgment and does not deprive Griggers of review (he may seek a stay) |
| Whether entry of a decree of sale would deprive defendant of appellate or other post-judgment remedies | Decree of sale completes the § 7403 process and can produce a final appealable order; sale procedures and confirmation remain subject to court oversight | Decree would preempt defendant's opportunity for review and act in bad faith against due process | Court found sale decree may facilitate, not foreclose, appeal rights; defendant can move to stay enforcement |
| Whether sale procedures and protections are required before sale | The Court should specify substantive sale terms and distribution to render a final, executable judgment | Defendant argues timing of these procedures affects his rights | Court adopted detailed PALS-directed procedures, notice, bidding, deposits, confirmation, distribution, and vacatur provisions |
| Whether redemption rights exist after sale | United States sought sale under § 7403 without redemption right | Defendant would prefer or assert rights to redeem post-sale | Court ordered sale without right of redemption pursuant to § 7403 |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 3.921 Acres of Land in Lake Cnty., 947 F.3d 1362 (11th Cir. 2020) (defines "final decision" that ends litigation on the merits and leaves only execution of judgment)
- United States v. Lena, [citation="370 F. App'x 65"] (11th Cir. 2010) (appeal from a judgment that left foreclosure instruction was neither final nor immediately appealable)
- United States v. Allahyari, 99 F.4th 486 (9th Cir. 2024) (lack of a final decision when a court has not specified substantive sale procedures and distribution)