[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-608000-105":59,"doc-detail-608000-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","united-states-district-court-northern-district-of-ohio-memorandum-of-opinion-and-order-summary-judgment","UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO - Memorandum of Opinion and Order - Summary Judgment","","Memorandum of Opinion and Order in a federal interpleader dispute over priority of competing claims to an interpleader fund. The court addresses third-party defendant United States of America’s motion for summary judgment, granting it in part and denying it in part. The case stems from a loan agreement and cognovit note, a judgment recorded in Cuyahoga County, and IRS assessment and lien filings based on unpaid federal taxes for the year ending December 31, 2005.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/united-states-district-court-northern-district-of-ohio-memorandum-of-opinion-and-order-summary-judgment/608000/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/united-states-district-court-northern-district-of-ohio-memorandum-of-opinion-and-order-summary-judgment/608000.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Rainbow Cat","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-10-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":19},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What is the core issue in the interpleader dispute?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The dispute concerns priority of claims in an interpleader fund between the judgment creditor and the IRS based on federal tax liens.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What did the court decide regarding the government’s motion for summary judgment?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The court granted the motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"On what basis did the IRS assert its claim?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The IRS assessed federal taxes for the relevant tax year, notified the taxpayers, and recorded a Notice of Federal Tax Lien covering all property and rights to property for the assessed amount and related penalties, interest, and costs.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},608000,1792428500,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":19,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},962090769181,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Case: 1:08-cv-02998-PAG Doc \\#: 29 Filed: 11/09/09 1 of 9. PageID \\#: 195  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nNORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO  \nEASTERN DIVISION  \nThe Home Savings and Loan Company, ) CASE NO. 1:08 CV 02998  \n)  \nPlaintiff, ) JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN  \n)  \nvs. )  \n)  \nAcme Arsena Company Inc., et al. )  Memorandum of Opinion and Order  \n)  \nDefendants and )  \nThird-party Plaintiffs, )  \n)  \nvs. )  \n)  \nThe Internal Revenue Service, )  \n)  \nThird-party Defendant. )  \nINTRODUCTION  \nThis matter is before the Court upon third-party defendant United States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) . This is a dispute as to priority of claim in an interpleader fund. For the reasons that follow, third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  \n1  \nCase: 1:08-cv-02998-PAG Doc \\#: 29 Filed: 11/09/09 2 of 9. PageID \\#: 196  \nFACTS  \nThis action arises originally from a complaint filed by plaintiff, Home Savings and Loan Company of Youngstown, Ohio (hereinafter “plaintiff”), against defendant, Acme Arsena Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Acme Arsena”), for money owed by Acme Arsena to plaintiff’s debtor, Victor Arsena. Acme Arsena then filed a third-party complaint for interpleader against third-party defendant, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), or properly the United States of America (referred to for purposes of this memorandum as “defendant”) .  \nVictor and Barbara Arsena (collectively “the Arsenas”) entered into a loan agreement anda revolving demand cognovit note for a commercial line of credit with plaintiff on December 19, 2003. On December 21, 2007, plaintiff obtained a judgment against the Arsenas for the remaining balance due under the loan agreement and note plus accrued interest, and recorded the judgment against the Arsenas in Cuyahoga County.  \nThe Arsenas have an outstanding federal tax liability for the year ending December 31, 2005. A delegate of the Secretary of Treasury assessed the Arsensas in the amount of $161,844 .57 on November 27, 2006. The IRS notified the Arsenas ofthe assessment and demanded payment, which the Arsenas failed to make. The IRS filed a Notice of Federal Tax Lien in the amount of $233,708 .38 with the Cuyahoga County Recorder on February 8, 2007. The federal tax lien covers “all property and rights to property belonging to this taxpayer for the amount of these taxes, and additional penalties, interest, and costs that may accrue.”  \nOn the same day that plaintiff recorded its judgment against the Arsensas, plaintiff filed a complaint against Acme Arsena Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Acme Arsena”) and Victor Arsena (hereinafter “Victor”) in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff alleges that  \n2  \nCase: 1:08-cv-02998-PAG Doc \\#: 29 Filed: 11/09/09 3 of 9. PageID \\#: 197  \nAcme Arsena owes Victor money pursuant to a share purchase/redemption and employment termination agreement, and that plaintiff has the right to that money pursuant to the judgment plaintiff obtained against the Arsenas.  \nAcme Arsena filed a third-party complaint against the IRS seeking to interplead the money it owes to Victor pursuant to the agreement, asking that the court order it to distribute the money to the proper party and release it from all obligations with respect to the money, and asking the court to order the IRS to assert any claims it has against the money Acme Arsena owes Victor or to be barred from asserting the claims in the future. Defendant removed the case to this Court. Subsequently, Acme Arsena moved for leave to deposit with the Court the money it owes under the agreement with Victor, which the Court granted.  \nDefendant now moves for summary judgment on its claims that it has a valid federal tax lien on all of Victor Arsena’s property and rights to property, and that it is entitled to priority in the interpleader fund over plaintiff’s lien. Plaintiff opposes summary judgment.  \nSTANDARD OF REVIEW  \nSummary judgment is appropriate when","cbCaih1snMn2W4ba","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaih1snMn2W4ba","pdf",147650,"English","# Introduction\n# Facts\n# Standard of Review","[{\"question\":\"What is the core issue in the interpleader dispute?\",\"answer\":\"The dispute concerns priority of claims in an interpleader fund between the judgment creditor and the IRS based on federal tax liens.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the court decide regarding the government’s motion for summary judgment?\",\"answer\":\"The court granted the motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part.\"},{\"question\":\"On what basis did the IRS assert its claim?\",\"answer\":\"The IRS assessed federal taxes for the relevant tax year, notified the taxpayers, and recorded a Notice of Federal Tax Lien covering all property and rights to property for the assessed amount and related penalties, interest, and costs.\"}]","UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO - Memorandum of Opinion and Order - Summary Judgment | PDF",1792209920,23]