Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nesbitt v. United States

Nesbitt v. United States, 622 F.2d 433 (9th Cir. 1980)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-06-26
Topic
general

The reasons for our affirmance were stated quite well in the district court’s opinion which appears in 445 F.Supp. 824 (N.D. Cal. 1978). We adopt Judge Renfrew’s opinion to the extent of Parts I, II, and III.A. As to Part III.B, we merely wish to hold that, to the extent an exception to section 3466 might exist for “perfected and specific liens,” the lien of the appellant was not sufficiently perfected and specific to come within any such exception. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Nesbitt v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
5 opinions
NESBITT v. UNITED STATES,622 F.2d 433(9th Cir. 1980)
MARIE D. NESBITT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SAFECO
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO; L. T. GOLDMEYER DBA UNION CREDIT COMPANY; AND THE FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 78-2111.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
June 26, 1980.
Franklin J. Flocks, Palo Alto, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Joan. I. Oppenheimer, Washington, D.C., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Charles B. Renfrew, Judge.
Before SNEED and POOLE, Circuit Judges, and PFAELZERfn*, District Judge.
[1] Appellant appeals from a summary judgment of the district court granting priority to the United States' tax lien claims over the judgment lien claim of the appellant. Both appellant and appellee agree that but for the provisions of Revised Statutes § 3466, 31 U.S.C. § 191, appellant would be entitled to priority. The district court held that section 3466 was applicable, with the consequence that the United States was entitled to priority, and that the appellant's lien was not excepted from the operation of section 3466. We affirm.

[2] The reasons for our affirmance were stated quite well in the district court's opinion which appears in445 F. Supp. 824(N.D. Cal. 1978). We adopt Judge Renfrew's opinion to the extent of Parts I, II, and III.A. As to Part III.B, we merely wish to hold that, to the extent an exception to section 3466 might exist for "perfected and specific liens," the lien of the appellant was not sufficiently perfected and specific to come within any such exception.

[3] Affirmed.
  1. Honorable Mariana R. Pfaelzer, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. ↩