Prodigy Centers v. T-C Associates , 147 F.3d 1324 ( 1998 )

PUBLISH
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_______________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 95-9448 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_______________
2/17/03
D. C. Docket No. 1:95-CV-1157-RHH
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
PRODIGY CENTERS/ATLANTA NO. 1 L.P.; PRODIGY CENTERS NO. 2 L.P.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
T-C ASSOCIATES, LTD., etc.,
Defendant-Appellee,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
______________________________
(July 29, 1998)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this case, the government and T-C Associates (“TCA”)
assert liens on a distribution to Prodigy Child Development
Centers (“PCDC”) from a limited partnership. Although TCA
obtained a judgment against PCDC before the government
recorded its tax lien in 1993, the government argues that TCA’s
judgment lien did not attach to PCDC’s partnership interest until
TCA obtained a charging order in 1994, because PCDC’s
partnership interest was a “chose in action.” After determining
that the issue of whether the partnership interest was a chose in
action was dispositive of this appeal but unsettled as a matter of
Georgia law, we certified the following question to the Supreme
Court of Georgia:
DOES A PARTNERSHIP INTEREST IN A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP CONSTITUTE A CHOSE IN ACTION?
Prodigy Centers/Atlanta No. 1 L.P. v. T-C Assoc., Ltd., 127 F.3d
1021, 1024 (11th Cir. 1997). In answer, the Supreme Court of
Georgia has decided that “a ‘partnership interest’ is a chose in
action.” Prodigy Centers/Atlanta v. T-C Assoc., No. S98Q0326,
__ S.E.2d __, __ (Ga. June 8, 1998). Since judgment liens
2
generally do not attach to choses in action under Georgia law
absent a collateral charging order to garnishment, see, e.g., id. at
__ n. 3, the government is correct that TCA’s lien did not attach
until 1994, well after the government recorded its own lien.
Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for TCA and REMAND with instructions that the district
court enter summary judgment for the government.
3