MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - United States District Court for the District of Kansas - Case No. 22-CV-1152-JAR

Sep 19, 2026

Memorandum and Order from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas addresses cross-motions for summary judgment on Count X of an amended complaint. The dispute concerns whether BMO Harris Bank, N.A. tortiously converted federal tax liens by repossessing and selling eight commercial vehicles. The Court grants BMO’s summary-judgment motion and denies the Government’s summary-judgment motion for Count X, while also setting out the summary-judgment standard governing material facts and burden shifting.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages21

Reading Time7 min

AccessFree to download

Memorandum and Order

Procedural posture and pending motions

Summary Judgment Standard

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GARY A. DUNN, BARBARA A. DUNN, WEST PLAINS TRANSPORT, INC., STOCKGROWERS STATE BANK, BMO HARRIS BANK N.A., FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LIBERAL, MEADE COUNTY TREASURER, and KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Defendants. Case No. 22-CV-1152-JAR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Government brought this action against several Defendants to enforce federal tax liens. The only remaining dispute in this case is whether Defendant BMO Harris Bank, N.A.(“BMO”) 1 tortiously converted the tax liens when it repossessed and sold eight commercial vehicles, as alleged in Count X of the Amended Complaint.2 Before the Court are the Government’s and BMO’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 71, 72) on Count X. The motions are fully briefed, and the Court is prepared to rule. As described more fully below, 1 BMO indicated in a recent filing that it changed its name to BMO Bank, N.A. on September 3, 2023. Doc. 80 at 1 n.1. 2 Defendants Stockgrowers State Bank, Gary A. Dunn, Barbara A. Dunn, and West Plains Transport, Inc. entered into stipulations with the Government for Judgment. Docs. 57, 59. On July 26, 2023, the Court entered Judgment in favor of the United States and against Defendant Stockgrowers State Bank on the lien-enforcement claims asserted against it in Counts VII, VIII, and XI of the Amended Complaint. Doc. 58. On August 21, 2023, the Court entered Judgment in favor of the United States and against taxpayer Defendants Gary A. Dunn, Barbara A. Dunn, and West Plains Transport, Inc. on Counts I through IX of the Amended Complaint. Doc. 61. Also pending before the Court is a Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants First National Bank of Liberal, the Meade County Treasurer, and the Kansas Department of Revenue. Doc. 70. The Court will rule on that motion in a separate order. the Court grants BMO’s motion for summary judgment and denies the Government’s motion for summary judgment on Count X. I. Summary Judgment Standard Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.3 In applying this standard, the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.4 “There is no genuine issue of material fact unless the evidence, construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”5 A fact is “material” if, under the applicable substantive law, it is “essential to the proper disposition of the claim.”6 An issue of fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for thenon-moving party.”7 The moving party initially must show the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.8 Once the movant has met the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”9 The nonmoving 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Grynberg v. Total, 538 F.3d 1336, 1346 (10th Cir. 2008) . 4 City of Harriman v. Bell, 590 F.3d 1176, 1181 (10th Cir. 2010) . 5 Bones v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. , 366 F.3d 869, 875 (10th Cir. 2004) . 6 Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kan. v. Abbott Labs., Inc. , 259 F.3d 1226, 1231–32 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998)) . 7 Thomas v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 631 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)) . 8 Spaulding v. United Transp. Union, 279 F.3d 901, 904 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986)) . 9 Anderson, [477 U.S. at 256](477 U.S. at 256); Celotex, [477 U.S.

FAQs

What is Count X in the amended complaint about?

Count X alleges that Defendant BMO Harris Bank, N.A. tortiously converted the tax liens when it repossessed and sold eight commercial vehicles.

What motions are before the Court?

The Government’s and BMO’s cross-motions for summary judgment on Count X are fully briefed and ready for decision.

How did the Court rule on the summary judgment motions for Count X?

The Court grants BMO’s motion for summary judgment and denies the Government’s motion for summary judgment on Count X.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by eBook King