Marre,et al v. United States ( 1997 )

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Nos. 96-20004, 96-20147.
Richard L. MARRÉ, et al., Plaintiffs,
Agritech Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
Richard L. MARRÉ; Agritech Enterprises, Inc., Plaintiffs-
Appellees,
v.
HP-84 NURSERY ASSOCIATES, INC., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellant.
July 22, 1997.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.
Before KING, GARWOOD and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs-appellees Richard L. Marré (Marré) and Agritech
Enterprises, Inc. (Agritech), Marré's wholly owned corporation,
sued the United States (government) under 26 U.S.C. § 7431 of the
Internal Revenue Code for wrongful disclosure of plaintiffs' tax
return information. The district court awarded statutory damages
and attorneys' fees to Marré but rejected Agritech's claim for
damages and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs appealed and the
government cross-appealed on the amount of attorneys' fees awarded
to Marré. A panel of this Court affirmed Marré's damages award but
1
reduced his attorneys' fees. The Court also reversed and remanded
Agritech's claim for damages and attorneys' fees. On remand, the
government and Agritech agreed on the amount of statutory damages.
The district court awarded Agritech attorneys' fees in the amount
of $55,500 and ordered the government not to set off the damages
and attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiffs against tax
assessments made by the government against plaintiffs under 26
U.S.C. §§ 6700 and 6701. Further, the Court allowed HP-84 Nursery
Associates (Nursery Associates), a judgment creditor of Marré, to
intervene and held that Nursery Associates was entitled to fifty
percent of Marré's damages and attorneys' fees. The government and
Nursery Associates now appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in
part.
Facts and Proceedings Below
In 1981, Marré founded Agritech, a corporation organized to
construct modular solar-heated greenhouse facilities on various
tracts of land in Ellis and Waller counties in Texas. Marré
marketed these greenhouses to limited partnerships and individual
investors as tax shelters. In early 1985, the Criminal
Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began
a criminal investigation of the plaintiffs' greenhouse operation.
The IRS believed that the plaintiffs had marketed the solar
greenhouses as a tax shelter but failed to construct completed
greenhouse facilities.
During the course of the investigation, Special Agent Lindell
Parrish of the IRS interviewed numerous Agritech investors,
2
promoters, suppliers, and employees and mailed out a large number
of form or "circular" letters to the Agritech investors and various
suppliers. In these interviews and letters, Agent Parrish stated
that Marré and Agritech were under investigation by the IRS for
allegedly aiding and assisting in the filing of false tax returns
in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), and in the view of the IRS,
any tax return that showed deductions or credits in connection with
the Agritech tax shelter was false and fraudulent. Attached to
each letter was a questionnaire that included statements that
indicated Marré had been dishonest with the investors.
Marré and Agritech filed suit against the government in the
district court below under 26 U.S.C. § 7431, seeking damages for
wrongful disclosures of their tax return information as defined in
26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2), in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 6103(a)(1) and
6103(k)(6). Marré v. United States, No. Civ. A. H-88-1103, 1992 WL
3240527 (S.D.Tex. June 22, 1992). Following a bench trial, the
district court found that the IRS had made 215 unauthorized
disclosures. The court determined that Marré suffered no actual
damages from the disclosures and, therefore, was not entitled to an
award for either compensatory or punitive damages. The court did,
however, award Marré statutory damages of $1,000 per disclosure, or
$215,000. The court also held that Agritech was not entitled to
any damages because it had ceased doing business approximately two
years before the disclosures were made; hence, the court opined,
an award of damages to Agritech would amount to a double recovery
for Marré. Finally, the court held that Marré, but not Agritech,
3
was entitled under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees of $308,444.60 and costs of $17,738.02, for a total
of $326,182.62.
Marré appealed on the amount of damages and Agritech appealed
the district court's rejection of its claim for damages and
attorneys' fees. The government cross-appealed on the amount of
attorneys' fees awarded to Marré. On appeal, we affirmed Marré's
damages award, holding that the district court did not err in
denying him actual damages and that, even if punitive damages were
recoverable under 26 U.S.C. § 7431(c) in the absence of actual
damages, the evidence did not sufficiently support an award for
punitive damages. Marré v. United States, 38 F.3d 823, 825-28 (5th
Cir.1994) (Marré I ). This Court also reduced Marré's attorneys'
fees award to $107,500 plus costs of $17,738.02, to reflect the
actual expenses incurred under his contingency fee agreement with
his attorneys. With respect to Agritech, this Court concluded that
nothing in section 7431 precluded the corporation from recovering
damages under that provision. We vacated that part of the district
court's judgment denying damages to Agritech and remanded for
reconsideration of Agritech's claim for damages and attorneys'
fees.1
On remand, the parties agreed that Agritech was entitled to
1
This Court recognized that although Agritech had not actively
engaged in business for two years prior to the time the disclosures
were made, under Texas law Agritech was still "technically alive."
We reasoned that because Agritech was a taxpayer for purposes of
section 7431 at the time of the disclosures, it could still recover
damages and attorneys' fees for the wrongful disclosure of its tax
return information.
4
statutory damages under section 7431 of $111,000 for 111 separate
acts of unauthorized disclosure of its tax return information. The
parties disagreed, however, on whether Agritech was entitled to any
attorneys' fees under section 7430. The district court determined
that Agritech was entitled, "under the law of the case," to an
award of $55,500 for its attorneys' fees. The court also held that
the government could not set off the plaintiffs' damages and
attorneys' fees awards against tax assessments the IRS had made
against Marré and Agritech under sections 6700 and 6701 while
appeal was pending in Marré I.2 Finally, the judgment required the
government to pay fifty percent of Marré's damages and attorneys'
fees to Nursery Associates, a creditor that had obtained a judgment
and turnover order against Marré in Texas state court and that the
district court had allowed to intervene.
The government now appeals, arguing that the district court
erred in awarding Agritech attorneys' fees and in prohibiting the
government from setting off plaintiffs' damages and attorneys' fees
against their tax liabilities. Nursery Associates appeals the
district court's judgment limiting its award to only fifty percent
of Marré's damages and attorneys' fees and denying its request for
reasonable attorneys' fees.
Discussion
I. Agritech's Attorneys' Fees
2
Those sections impose penalties for promoting abusive tax
shelters and for aiding and abetting understatement of tax
liability. The issue of whether the tax assessments made against
Marré and Agritech under those sections are valid is currently
being litigated in the district court.
5
Section 7430 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that
taxpayers who prevail in tax proceedings may recover their
attorneys' fees incurred in such proceeding if they establish that
(1) the position of the government at the time of litigation was
not substantially justified; (2) the taxpayers substantially
prevailed with respect to the amount in controversy or with respect
to the most significant issue or set of issues presented; and (3)
the taxpayers meet applicable net worth requirements. 26 U.S.C. §
7430(c)(4)(A); see also Nalle v. C.I.R., 55 F.3d 189, 191 (5th
Cir.1995).3 The burden of proving that the government was not
substantially justified in its litigation position is with the
taxpayers. Information Resources, Inc. v. United States, 996 F.2d
780, 786 (5th Cir.1993).
The government concedes that Marré and Agritech substantially
prevailed on the most significant issues and meet the net worth
requirements. The government contends, however, that the district
court's award of attorneys' fees to Agritech was erroneous and
should be reversed because, among other things, Agritech has failed
to show that the government's position in the litigation with
respect to Agritech was not "substantially justified," i.e. that it
was not "justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable
person" or had no "reasonable basis both in law and fact." Nalle,
55 F.3d at 191 (citations omitted). "In determining whether the
3
Furthermore, the taxpayers must have exhausted all
administrative remedies within the IRS. See 26 U.S.C. §
7430(b)(1). The government does not contend that Agritech failed
to exhaust its administrative remedies.
6
[government's] position was not substantially justified, the
question is whether the [government] acted unreasonably—that is,
whether [it] knew or should have known that [its] position was
invalid at the onset of the litigation." Id. (citing Bouterie v.
C.I.R., 36 F.3d 1361, 1373 (5th Cir.1994)).
We review the lower court's award of attorneys' fees under
section 7430 for abuse of discretion, see Wilkerson v. United
States, 67 F.3d 112, 119 (5th Cir.1995), and the supporting factual
findings are reviewed for clear error. Riley v. City of Jackson,
Miss., 99 F.3d 757, 759 (5th Cir.1996). Review of the conclusions
of law underlying an award or denial of attorneys' fees is de novo.
Texas Food Indus. Ass'n v. United States Dept. of Agric., 81 F.3d
578, 580 (5th Cir.1996). This Court reviews the district court's
ruling on substantial justification for abuse of discretion, and
will reverse only if we have a definite and firm conviction that an
error of judgment was committed. Portillo v. C.I.R., 988 F.2d 27,
28 (5th Cir.1993).
Having reviewed the record, we conclude Agritech has failed to
demonstrate that the government's position in the litigation
vis-à-vis Agritech was not substantially justified, as the
government did not know and had no reason to know that Agritech
could recover statutory damages and attorneys' fees under section
7430. There is no evidence Agritech suffered actual damages, and
we have held there was no basis for punitive damages. From the
very outset of this litigation, the government's position has been
that Agritech was not entitled to damages for the unauthorized
7
disclosure of its tax return information because it was, at all
relevant times, essentially a defunct entity. The government
vehemently argued, and the district court found, that Agritech—at
all relevant times wholly owned by Marré—was not entitled to
damages because it had not actively engaged in business ever since
a time some two years before the complained of disclosures were
made. The government reasonably relied on the fact that the Texas
Secretary of State had forfeited Agritech's charter twice and the
charter had remained forfeited until two months before trial.
Tellingly, even the district court in Marré I believed that
the government's position was reasonable, as evidenced by its
observation that Agritech was "dead in the water" and "little more
than a corporate corpse." Although the court's agreement with the
government's argument is not of itself dispositive of the issue, we
believe that the court's acceptance of the government's litigation
position further demonstrates the reasonableness of that position.
This is not a case where the government "unreasonably defended
[its] position after several earlier courts had rejected it, when
the IRS had ignored state law that clearly supported the taxpayer,
[or] when the IRS had failed to conduct a reasonable investigation
that would have revealed the flaw in its position." Nalle, 55 F.3d
at 191-92 (internal footnotes omitted). Instead, the issue of
Agritech's essentially defunct corporate status at all relevant
times was a relatively novel one, as neither this Court nor any
other federal court had addressed this precise issue until Marré I.
Although we were not persuaded by the government's (and district
8
court's) reliance on Shapiro v. Smith, 652 F.Supp. 218 (S.D.Ohio
1986), which the government claimed supported its position that
Agritech was not entitled to damages and attorneys' fees because it
was "as good as dead," see Marré I, 38 F.3d at 828, our rejection
of this argument was neither an express nor implied finding that
the government's position was unreasonable.4 Indeed, the
government had no reason to know at the outset of litigation,
either by analyzing federal and state case law or through some
other reasonable investigation, that Marré's wholly owned
corporation Agritech could recover damages and attorneys' fees
despite having been inactive and essentially defunct ever since a
time approximately two years before the challenged disclosures were
made. Because Agritech has failed to demonstrate that the
government's position at litigation was not substantially
4
This Court concluded in Marré I that Agritech was
"technically alive" because under Texas law, "the reinstatement of
[Agritech's] charter will relate back and will revive whatever
rights the corporation had at the time the suit was filed." Marré
I, 38 F.3d at 828. Although we ultimately vacated the district
court's judgment as to Agritech and remanded so that the court
could determine whether Agritech was entitled to any damages and
attorneys' fees and if so in what amount, we did not offer any
opinion as to whether the government's litigation position with
respect to Agritech was substantially justified. See, e.g., Lennox
v. C.I.R., 998 F.2d 244, 248 (5th Cir.1993) (explaining that "the
ultimate failure of the government's legal position does not
necessarily mean that it was not substantially justified").
We further note that the district court on remand did not
find that the government's position was not substantially
justified. Rather, the court awarded attorneys' fees to
Agritech apparently without giving any consideration to the
substantial justification issue, as evidenced by the court's
own inconsistency—that is, agreeing with the government's
litigation position during the first trial, and then awarding
attorneys' fees to Agritech on remand.
9
justified, we hold that the court below abused its discretion by
awarding Agritech attorneys' fees.5
II. Government's Right of Setoff
Next, the government contends that the district court erred in
not allowing it (the government) to set off the plaintiffs' damages
and Marré's attorneys' fees against their tax liabilities.6 While
appeal was pending in Marré I, the government assessed tax
penalties of $2,010,733.40 against Marré (in October 1993) and
Agritech (in February 1994) for promoting abusive tax shelters in
violation of section 6700 and for aiding and abetting the
understatement of tax liability in violation of section 6701.
Marré and Agritech then filed a separate suit in district court
challenging the tax assessments. Meanwhile, the court on remand
held that the government could not set off the damages and
attorneys' fees awarded to Marré and Agritech against their
outstanding tax liabilities.
The government has both a common law and a statutory right of
setoff. The government's common law right of setoff—which is
inherent in the federal government—is broad and "exists independent
5
Because we conclude that Agritech was not entitled to any
attorneys' fees on the basis that the government's litigation
position was substantially justified, we need not reach the merits
of the other arguments made by the government in respect to the
attorneys' fee award to Agritech.
6
As part of its setoff argument, the government contends that
it should be allowed to set off Agritech's attorneys' fees as well.
However, our holding that Agritech is not entitled to recover any
attorneys' fees necessarily renders moot the issue of whether
Agritech's attorneys' fees are subject to the government's right of
setoff.
10
of any statutory grant of authority to the executive branch."
United States v. Tafoya, 803 F.2d 140, 141 (5th Cir.1986). "The
government has the same right which belongs to every creditor, to
apply the unappropriated moneys of his debtor, in his hands, in
extinguishment of the debts due to him." United States v. Munsey
Trust Co. of Washington, D.C., 332 U.S. 234, 239, 67 S.Ct. 1599,
1602, 91 L.Ed. 2022 (1947) (internal quotations omitted).
The government's statutory right of setoff is found in 31
U.S.C. § 3728, which provides:
"(a) The Comptroller General shall withhold paying that part
of a judgment against the United States Government presented
to the Comptroller General that is equal to a debt the
plaintiff owes the Government.
(b) The Comptroller General shall—
(1) discharge the debt if the plaintiff agrees to the
setoff and discharges a part of the judgment equal to the
debt; or
(2)(A) withhold payment of an additional amount the
Comptroller General decides will cover legal costs of
bringing a civil action for the debt if the plaintiff
denies the debt or does not agree to the setoff; and
(B) have a civil action brought if one has not already
been brought.
(c) If the Government loses a civil action to recover a debt
or recovers less than the amount the Comptroller General
withholds under this section, the Comptroller General shall
pay the plaintiff the balance and interest of 6 percent for
the time the money is withheld."
The government's right of setoff, although broad, is not
unlimited. In order for the government to invoke its right of
setoff, there must be mutuality of debt between the parties. See
United States v. 717.42 Acres of Land, 955 F.2d 376, 381 (5th
Cir.1992); see also Capuano v. United States, 955 F.2d 1427, 1429-
11
30 (11th Cir.1992) (explaining that "[t]he right of set-off is
within the equitable power of a court to offset mutual debts
running between two parties"). Mutuality requires "that the
judgment creditor must be the same person (in the view of the law)
as the party who owes the debt to be collected, and the government
must be the same person to whom the debt is owed." In re Mr. Alan
I. Saltman, Comp. Gen. B-259532, 1995 WL 905738, at *2 (March 6,
1995) (unpublished).
A. Setoff of Plaintiffs' Damages
With respect to the plaintiffs' damages awards in this case,
the government has the authority to set off the damages against the
plaintiffs' alleged tax liabilities. A mutual debt exists as
between the plaintiffs and the government—that is, the government
owes the plaintiffs $326,000 in total damages and the plaintiffs
allegedly owe the government in excess of $2,000,000 in taxes.
Because there is mutuality of debt between the plaintiffs and the
government, and because we see no valid reason to disallow setoff,7
we conclude that the district court erred in prohibiting the
government from exercising its right of setoff against plaintiffs'
7
Although it is possible to conjecture that the reason the
district court prohibited the government from setting off the
plaintiffs' tax liabilities was that the court believed the
government's assessments were retaliatory in nature, the court made
no such express finding of bad faith on the part of the government.
In a similar vein, the plaintiffs argue that setoff should not be
allowed because they are not liable for the allegedly retaliatory
penalties that the government seeks to set off against the
judgment. Plaintiffs claim the penalties were retaliatory in that,
inter alia, the assessments were made after plaintiffs were "no
longer under investigation." The parties are currently litigating
the legitimacy of the assessments in the district court below.
That issue is not properly before us.
12
tax debts.8
B. Setoff of Marré's Attorneys' Fees
Next, we consider whether the district court erroneously
prohibited the government from setting off the award to Marré's
attorneys against Marré's tax liabilities. At the conclusion of
the first trial, the court awarded Marré, in addition to $215,000
in damages, $308,444.60 in attorneys' fees and $17,738.02 in costs
pursuant to section 7430. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment as
to the amount of damages and costs, but reduced the attorneys' fees
award to $107,500, to reflect the reasonable fees "paid or
incurred" by Marré for the services of his attorneys, Urquhart &
Hassell, under their contingency fee agreement. On remand, the
district court in setting forth the plaintiffs' damages and
attorneys' fees awards in a final judgment calculated Marré's
attorneys' fees by adding his damages of $215,000 and attorneys'
fees of $107,500, and then dividing the total in half to reflect
the attorneys' fifty percent interest in the amounts recovered, or
$161,250.9 After adding the $17,738.02 in costs, the court ordered
that the government pay Urquhart & Hassell a total of $178,988.02.
Section 7430 provides that "the prevailing party may be
awarded a judgment or a settlement for ... reasonable litigation
8
Moreover, the district court's prohibiting the government
from setting off mutual debts raises serious sovereign immunity and
jurisdictional concerns as well.
9
Likewise, the court added Agritech's $111,000 in damages to
its $55,500 in attorneys' fees, and dividing the total in half,
calculated the attorneys' fifty percent interest to be $83,250.
13
costs incurred in connection with such court proceeding."10 26
U.S.C. § 7430. Under the statute, if the court decides to award
attorneys' fees to the prevailing party, the fees are to be awarded
in addition to any damages awarded to the prevailing party. In
other words, the attorneys' fees are not awarded out of the
prevailing party's damages, but rather are awarded on top of any
damages the prevailing party receives. See generally Plant v.
10
The statute reads, in relevant part, as follows:
"(a) In general.—In any administrative or court
proceeding which is brought by or against the United
States in connection with the determination, collection,
or refund of any tax, interest, or penalty under this
title, the prevailing party may be awarded a judgment or
settlement for—
(1) reasonable administrative costs incurred in
connection with such administrative proceeding within the
Internal Revenue Service, and
(2) reasonable litigation costs incurred in
connection with such court proceeding....
(c) Definitions.—For purposes of this section—
(1) Reasonable litigation costs.—The term
"reasonable litigation costs' includes—
(A) reasonable court costs, and
(B) based upon prevailing market rates for the kind
of quality of services furnished ...
(iii) reasonable fees paid or incurred for the
services of attorneys in connection with the court
proceeding, ...
(3) Attorney's fees. For purposes of paragraphs (1) and
(2), fees for the services of an individual (whether or
not an attorney) who is authorized to practice before the
Tax Court or before the Internal Revenue Service shall be
treated as fees for the services of an attorney." 26
U.S.C. § 7430.
14
Blazer Financial Services, Inc. of Ga., 598 F.2d 1357, 1365-66 (5th
Cir.1979) (disallowing setoff by creditor for violation of Truth in
Lending Act where debtor was awarded attorneys' fees under statute
making creditor liable for "the costs of the action together with
a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court"); Duncan
v. United States Dept. of Army, No. 88-2143, 1989 WL 117742, at *1
(4th Cir. Oct.4, 1989) (unpublished opinion) (disallowing setoff of
attorneys' fees by Army for violation of Right to Privacy Act, 12
U.S.C. § 3401 et seq., where fees were awarded under 12 U.S.C. §
3417(a)(4), making Army responsible for "the costs of the action
together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the
court"). Thus, damages and attorneys' fees under section 7430 are
separate awards, the former going to the prevailing party and the
latter to the prevailing party's attorneys. In this case, because
the attorneys' fees awarded under section 7430 belong to Urquhart
& Hassell, and not Marré, the government cannot set off Marré's tax
obligations against the attorneys' fees award, as no mutuality of
debt exists between the government and Marré's attorneys.
That the statute provides that attorneys' fees are to be
awarded to the prevailing party is not controlling. The issue "is
not whether plaintiff is nominally to receive the money but whether
ultimately it is to go to her attorney or to be credited toward
defendant in repayment of plaintiff's debt." Plant, 598 F.2d at
1366. Here, as in Plant and Duncan, the prevailing party is only
nominally the person who receives the award; the real party in
interest vis-à-vis attorneys' fees awarded under the statute are
15
the attorneys themselves.11 See, e.g., Id. at 1366; Duncan, 1989
WL 117742, at *3.
To the extent we conclude that Marré's attorneys' fees award
belongs to Urquhart & Hassell—and therefore is not subject to set
off—the government cannot take advantage of either United States v.
Cohen, 389 F.2d 689 (5th Cir.1967), or United States v. Transocean
Air Lines, Inc., 386 F.2d 79 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1047, 88 S.Ct. 784, 19 L.Ed.2d 839 (1968). Cohen involved a
prisoner who successfully sued the United States under the Federal
Tort Claims Act for failure to prevent his being assaulted by a
fellow inmate. The court awarded the plaintiff $110,000, and of
that amount $15,000 was awarded in attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2678, "free and clear of any and all claims which the Internal
Revenue Service, the Treasury Department or the United States of
America ... might have or assert against the plaintiff in this
case." Id. at 690 (internal quotations omitted). On appeal, we
reversed the district court's denial of setoff, holding that under
section 2678, the attorneys' rights to the fees were derivative of
the plaintiff's recovery and, therefore, subject to the
government's right of setoff. Id. at 691-92.
In Transocean Air Lines, plaintiff, a bankrupt air carrier,
sued the government over disputed compensation allegedly owed it
for its transportation services. The government and the trustee in
11
For the same reasons, the fact that the district court
awarded the attorneys' fees to Marré, and not his attorneys, does
not affect our conclusion that, in this particular case, "the fee
once awarded becomes in effect an asset of the attorney, not the
client." Plant, 598 F.2d at 1366.
16
bankruptcy settled for $75,000, to be credited against a larger
claim the government held against Transocean. Plaintiff's
attorneys, who under a contingency fee agreement were to be given
a one-third interest in all amounts recovered, sought to recover
$25,000 for their services. The district court granted judgment in
favor of the attorneys in the amount of $25,000 directly against
the government and reduced Transocean's judgment to $50,000. In
reversing the judgment, we reasoned that the attorneys' interest in
the fees was derived from Florida contracts law, and because the
right to sue the federal government cannot be granted by state law
or through contractual relationships with third parties, the
judgment could not be sustained as against the government. Id. at
81-82. We also held that the attorneys' fees award could not be
characterized as an assignment of Transocean's claim, as any such
assignment of the judgment would be invalid under the Anti-
Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 203.12 Id.Unlike the case at bar, the attorneys' fees in Cohen and
Transocean Air Lines were awarded out of the plaintiffs' damages.
In Cohen, the attorneys' fees were awarded pursuant to a statute
that then provided that the court could award reasonable attorneys'
fees of up to twenty percent of the amount recovered by the
plaintiff " "to be paid out of but not in addition to the amount of
judgment ... recovered, ...' " Cohen, 389 F.2d at 690 n. 3 (citing
28 U.S.C.A. § 2678) (emphasis added). In Transocean Air Lines, the
12
Section 203 has since been revised. See 31 U.S.C. § 3727.
These revisions, however, are not relevant to our discussion.
17
fees were awarded under a contingency fee contract that provided
that the attorneys would receive a one-third interest in the
recovery. See Transocean Air Lines, 386 F.2d at 80. Because the
attorneys' interest in the fees was derivative of the plaintiffs'
interest in the judgment, we allowed the government to set off the
attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiffs against the judgments
favorable to the plaintiffs. See Duncan, 1989 WL 117742, at *3
(distinguishing Cohen on the basis that the case involved two
creditors, the government and plaintiff's attorneys, competing for
rights to the plaintiff's judgment). As stated earlier, the case
before us does not involve derivative rights of the attorneys to
the fees; instead, the fees were awarded to Marré's attorneys in
addition to the full statutory damages awarded to Marré.13
Our holding that the government may not set off the attorney's
fees extends to, but only to, that portion of the fees awarded
pursuant to section 7430, i.e. $107,500 in fees and $17,738.02 in
costs, or $125,238.02. The government may still set off the
remaining portion of the attorneys' fees which was awarded out of
Marré's $215,000 in damages, or $53,750. This is so because the
$53,750 falls within and comes out of the $215,000 awarded to Marré
as damages, which we have held may be set off by the government
13
None of the other cases cited by the government involves
attorneys' fees awarded pursuant to a statute. See United States
v. Munsey Trust Co., 332 U.S. 234, 67 S.Ct. 1599, 91 L.Ed. 2022(1947); Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. New York, 259 F.2d 33(2d Cir.1958); South Side Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 221
F.2d 813 (7th Cir.1955); Malman v. United States, 207 F.2d 897 (2d
Cir.1953).
18
because of mutuality of debt between the government and Marré.14
III. Nursery Associates' Rights Under the Turnover Order
Nursery Associates, following a jury trial in Texas state
court, secured a judgment against Marré individually on December 4,
1989, in the amount of $345,800 plus post-judgment interest of 10%
per annum on the amount of $204,000 until paid. Through
post-judgment discovery, Nursery Associates identified Marré's
interest in the present case as his only significant asset.
Pursuant to section 31.002 of the Texas Civil Procedure Practice
and Remedies Code, Nursery Associates obtained an order for
turnover relief from the state court on March 16, 1993.15 The order
14
We note that Marré has not challenged the propriety of
awarding his attorneys more than the amount we held in Marré I was
the maximum proper award. Our disposition of the claims of the
other parties renders it unnecessary to decide that matter.
15
Section 31.002 provides, in relevant part:
"(a) A judgment creditor is entitled to aid from a court
of appropriate jurisdiction through injunction or other
means in order to reach property to obtain satisfaction
on the judgment if the judgment debtor owns property,
including present or future rights to property, that:
(1) cannot readily be attached or levied on by
ordinary legal process; and
(2) is not exempt from attachment, execution, or
seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities....
....
(c) The court may enforce the order by contempt
proceedings or by other appropriate means in the event of
refusal or disobedience.
(d) The judgment creditor may move for the court's
assistance under this section in the same proceeding in
which the judgment is rendered or in an independent
proceeding.
19
required that Marré "and his agents, representatives, and/or
attorneys turn over to HP-84 Nursery Associates any and all
benefits or items of value that arise or result from [Marré's suit
against the government]." In addition, Nursery Associates was
awarded reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees of $1,000 along
with the costs of the turnover proceeding.
On April 7, 1993, Nursery Associates filed its Notice of
Interest, Motion to Intervene and Brief in Support, and Complaint
In Intervention, requesting permission to intervene in Marré's
federal lawsuit as a judgment creditor pursuant to the Texas state
court turnover order. On April 16, 1993, the court denied the
intervention. On remand to the district court from Marré I,
Nursery Associates again sought to intervene in this case as
judgment creditor. On April 21, 1995, the district court granted
the Motion to Intervene and thereafter, on May 1, 1995, Nursery
Associates filed its Complaint in Intervention. Nursery Associates
filed a Motion to Enforce Turnover Order on November 3, 1995,
asserting that it was entitled to enforcement of its judgment in
the total amount of $503,198.44 ($345,800 principal plus interest).
The district court, however, did not order turnover of all of
the damages and attorneys' fees awarded to Marré, which totaled
$322,500. Instead, in its enforcement of the turnover order, the
district court apparently relied on Marré's contingency fee
agreement, which provided for a fee of 50% of all amounts
(e) The judgment creditor is entitled to recover
reasonable costs, including attorney's fees."
20
"recovered" by Marré, and awarded Nursery Associates only $161,250,
to be paid by the government. The court also denied Nursery
Associates's request for attorneys' fees.
On appeal, Nursery Associates argues that the district court
erred in prohibiting it from receiving all of the proceeds of the
judgment obtained by Marré against the government, including all
damages and attorneys' fees. It claims that the court was required
to look to state law in enforcing the state court turnover order
and, because the language of the turnover order awards Nursery
Associates any and all benefits or items of value that arise from
Marré's suit against the government, the district court was
required to honor the terms of the turnover order without regard to
any contractual arrangement between Marré and his attorneys.
Moreover, Nursery Associates complains that it was entitled to all
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing its turnover order
in these proceedings.16
A. Nursery Associates' Interest in Marré's Damages
With respect to the $215,000 in damages awarded to Marré, we
held above that the government could set off the entire amount
against Marré's tax liabilities, as the government's right of
setoff is superior to both Marré's interest and his attorneys'
derivative interest in that award. Because Nursery Associates'
16
It is undisputed that Nursery Associates complied with Texas
law in obtaining the turnover order; that the order requires Marré
to turn over any and all benefits and items of value received or to
be received by Marré, including any damages and attorneys' fees,
from his action against the government; and that Nursery
Associates was properly before the district court to enforce its
turnover order.
21
interest in Marré's damages is also merely derivative of Marré's
interest, we likewise conclude that the government's right of
setoff is superior to Nursery Associates' interest in the damages.
See Cohen, 389 F.2d at 692.17
Our analysis regarding Nursery Associates' interest in
Marré's damages does not end here, however. With the litigation
over the legitimacy of Marré's tax assessments currently pending in
17
We observe that neither the government nor Nursery Associates
contends that their rights vis-a-vis each other in respect to the
setoff issue differ in any way from the rights of Marré and the
government vis-a-vis each other in respect to the same issue. In
other words, Nursery Associates does not contend that it has any
greater right than has Marré to prevent the government from setting
off against Marré's damage award Marré's asserted indebtedness for
taxes as per the tax assessments made against Marré October 18,
1993, during the pendency of the Marré I appeal; and, Nursery
Associates has stated its agreement with the government's
contention that Nursery Associates simply stands in Marré's shoes
in this respect, with rights as against the government no greater
or lesser than those of Marré. In this respect, neither the
government nor Nursery Associates contends that their rights as
against each other are determined by the body of law governing the
relative priorities of federal tax liens and the claims of state
law creditors of the taxpayer. See 26 U.S.C. § 6321 et seq. We
note in passing that, for purposes of this body of law, Nursery
Associates' March 1993 turnover order appears not to have resulted
in a choate or perfected interest in Marré's judgment against the
government before the conclusion of the appeal of that judgment in
our 1994 decision in Marré I, so that the lien of the government's
October 1993 assessment was "first in time" vis-a-vis Nursery
Associates' interest. See United States v. McDermott, 507 U.S.
447, 449-51, 113 S.Ct. 1526, 1528, 123 L.Ed.2d 128 (1993)
(explaining that a state lien is perfected when "the identity of
the lienor, the property subject to the lien, and the amount of the
lien are established"); Western National Bank v. United States, 8
F.3d 253, 255 (5th Cir.1993) (same); Palandjoglou v. United
National Insurance Co., 821 F.Supp. 1179, 1186-87 (S.D.Tex.1993).
See also Commercial Credit Corp. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 630 S.W.2d
651, 652 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, no writ). Even if we
were to assume, arguendo, that after our Marré I decision Nursery
Associates was a "judgment lienor creditor" for purposes of 26
U.S.C. § 6323(a), nevertheless Nursery Associates does not contend
the government had not properly filed notice of its tax lien prior
to our Marré I decision.
22
the district court below, there remains the possibility that the
district court could invalidate the government's tax assessments.
To that end, we must also consider whether Nursery Associates'
interest in the $215,000 damage award is superior to the interests
of Marré and his attorneys. As between Nursery Associates and
Marré, Nursery Associates' interest in the entire amount of the
award is superior to Marré's interest. The turnover order's
mandate that Marré turn over to Nursery Associates any and all
benefits or items of value that result from the present law suit
was clear and unequivocal. Hence, the district court erred in
awarding Nursery Associates only half of Marré's recovery.
Likewise, as between Nursery Associates and Marré's
attorneys, Nursery Associates' interest in that portion of the
$215,000 in damages that was awarded to the attorneys under the
contingency agreement—$161,250 less $107,500, or $53,750—is also
superior to the interest of Marré's attorneys. An attorney's right
to compensation pursuant to a contingency fee agreement is a
property right determined under applicable state law. Augustson v.
Linea Aerea Nacional-Chile S.A., 76 F.3d 658, 662 (5th Cir.1996).
Under Texas law, a contingency fee agreement is generally
considered to be an executory contract.18 See Lee v. Cherry, 812
18
Marré argues that an equitable assignment of a present
interest in a cause of action can occur, although not expressed, if
the parties intended such an assignment. Marré claims that he and
his attorneys intended an assignment of an interest in the cause of
action in the November 1, 1989, amended fee agreement. The amended
fee agreement letter, however, does not support Marré's argument,
as the letter states only that "Urquhart & Hassell will be entitled
to 50% of all amounts recovered." The letter does not state, for
example, that Marré agrees to "sell," "transfer," "assign," or
23
S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex.App.—Hous.[14th Dist.] 1991, reh'g of writ
overruled); Brenan v. LaMotte, 441 S.W.2d 626, 630
(Tex.Civ.App.San Antonio 1969, no writ); White v. Brookline Trust
Co., 371 S.W.2d 597, 600 (Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1963, writ ref'd
n.r.e.); Carroll, 168 S.W.2d at 240. Therefore, as a general
rule, "an attorney does not receive a legal or equitable interest
pursuant to a contingency fee contract until the contingency
actually occurs."19 In re Willis, 143 B.R. at 431. Once the
contingency occurs, the attorney has a lien on the judgment or
settlement securing his services, and "an attorney's lien is
paramount to the rights of the parties in the suit, and is superior
to other liens on the money or property involved, subsequent in
point of time." Id. at 432 (citations omitted).
Nursery Associates obtained its turnover order from the state
court on March 16, 1993, while appeal was pending in Marré I—before
the contingency occurred. Because the contingency fee contract
"convey" to his attorneys a specified interest in his claim. See,
e.g., Carroll v. Hunt, 140 Tex. 424, 168 S.W.2d 238, 239
(Tex.Com.App.1943, opinion adopted); In re Willis, 143 B.R. 428,
431 n. 4 (Bankr.E.D.Tex.1992).
19
Although it is unclear what constitutes the defining moment
at which the contingency occurs, compare Lee, 812 S.W.2d at 363
(contingency occurs after "reduction to judgment") with White, 371
S.W.2d at 600 (contingency occurs after "prosecuting or defending
to final judgment all suits") and Carroll, 168 S.W.2d at 240, 242
(contingency occurs after "successful termination of the
litigation"), we believe that at minimum, the contingency cannot
occur before judgment is affirmed on appeal or when the time for
filing an appeal has lapsed. See Lee, 812 S.W.2d at 363
(explaining that "an executory contract is one that is still
unperformed by both parties or one with respect to which something
still remains to be done on both sides") (internal quotations
omitted) (emphasis in original).
24
between Marré and his attorneys was still executory at the time
Nursery Associates obtained its turnover order, Nursery Associates'
interest in the fees is superior to the interest held by Urquhart
& Hassell. Thus, Nursery Associates' interest in the entire
$215,000, including the $53,750 in attorneys' fees awarded out of
the damages, is superior to the interests of both Marré and his
attorneys.20
B. Nursery Associates' Interest in the $107,500 in Attorneys' Fees
For the same reasons that the government cannot set off the
$107,500 in attorneys' fees against Marré's tax assessments,
Nursery Associates cannot claim an interest in the $107,500 of the
fee award which would be superior to Urquhart & Hassell's interest.
Any rights that Nursery Associates has in that portion of the
attorneys' fees under the turnover order are, at most, derivative
of Marré's right to the fees. Thus, because the fees were awarded
to Marré's attorneys, and not Marré, and because Nursery
Associates' interest stems from Marré's right to the fees, Urquhart
20
Marré argues that, under the common fund doctrine, it would
be inequitable to allow Nursery Associates to reap the benefits of
Urquhart & Hassell's labor, as the attorneys' fees "fund" that
Nursery Associates seeks to acquire through the turnover order was
only made possible through Urquhart & Hassell's work in this case.
The common fund doctrine, however, typically applies in situations
where the attorneys sue for an interest commonly held by members of
a class or third parties who benefit from the suit—which is not the
situation here. See, e.g., Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S.
472, 477-81, 100 S.Ct. 745, 749-50, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980); Sprague
v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 164-68, 59 S.Ct. 777, 779-
80, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939). Although application of the doctrine may
be appropriate in exceptional cases, we believe the case at bar
does not present any exceptional or compelling reasons that would
warrant invoking the doctrine. See In re Delta Towers, Ltd., 924
F.2d 74, 78 (5th Cir.1991).
25
& Hassell's interest in the $107,500 of the attorneys' fees is
superior to the interest held by Nursery Associates.21
C. Nursery Associates' Reasonable Attorneys' Fees
Finally, Nursery Associates argues that it is entitled to all
of its reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees incurred in having
to obtain and enforce the turnover order: $1,000 in attorneys'
fees for obtaining the order plus $15,000 in attorneys' fees for
the intervention. Attorneys' fees are mandatory under the turnover
statute if the evidence shows that the judgment creditor was
successful in obtaining turnover relief and the attorneys' fees and
costs are reasonable.22 Great Global Assurance Co. v. Keltex
Properties, Inc., 904 S.W.2d 771, 775-76 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi
1995, no writ); see also Cortland Line Co. v. Israel, 874 S.W.2d
178, 184 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (stating
that "[a] court has the discretion to fix the amount of attorney's
fees, but it does not have the discretion in denying them if they
are proper under § 38.001"). Because Nursery Associates was
successful in obtaining turnover relief and we find nothing in the
record that would indicate to us that the fees are anything but
21
Nursery Associates make no claim to the $17,738.02 in costs
awarded to Marré's attorneys. However, even if Nursery Associates
had asked for the costs, its interest would nevertheless come
behind the attorneys' interest because the costs were awarded,
along with the $107,500 in attorneys' fees, directly to the
attorneys under the attorneys' fees statute.
22
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §§ 38.001-.006 govern the
award of attorneys' fees under section 31.002(e). See Great Global
Assurance Co., 904 S.W.2d at 775.
26
reasonable,23 we conclude the district court erred in refusing to
award Nursery Associates its requested attorneys' fees as against
Marré.
Conclusion
In sum, we reverse the district court's award of attorneys'
fees to Agritech as well as the court's refusal to allow the
government to set off Marré's and Agritech's damages of $326,000,
which includes the $53,750 in attorneys' fees awarded to Marré.
The setoff is allowed so that the government can withhold payment
of the damages to Marré and Agritech pending final adjudication of
their tax liabilities on the assessments made while the Marré I
appeal was pending. However, we affirm the court's judgment to the
extent that it prohibits the government from setting off Urquhart
& Hassell's fee award of $107,500 and costs of $17,738.02, as these
fees and costs belong solely to Marré's attorneys, unencumbered by
the government's right of setoff.
We further hold that Nursery Associates' interest in Marré's
damages award of $215,000 is likewise subject to the government's
right of setoff, but is superior to both Marré's and Urquhart &
Hassell's rights to the award. As for the $107,500 in attorneys'
fees (and $17,738.02 expenses), Urquhart & Hassell's interest in
the fees (and expenses) is superior to both the government's right
of setoff and Nursery Associates' rights. Lastly, Nursery
Associates is entitled to $16,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees as
23
No party below or on appeal has questioned the reasonableness
of the $16,000 amount requested by Nursery Associates.
27
against Marré.
The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED
in part.
28