Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. May Oilfield Services, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cable Atlanta, Inc. v. Project, Inc., Tpics, Inc., Ernest Dixon D/B/A Tpi Construction Supplies, United States of America (11th Cir. 1984)
- Noriega & Alexander v. United States (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1994)
- Diversified Metal Products v. T-Bow Co. Trust (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1994)
- Central Bank of Tampa v. United States (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1993)
- Chevron v. May Oilfield Services, Inc. (10th Cir. 1984)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Chevron U.S.A. instituted this interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 naming as defendants May Oilfield Services, Inc., Michael Vercimak, the district director of the Internal Revenue Service, and the United States. Chevron had an account payable,to May in the amount of $125,079.04, and alleged that conflicting claims had been made to that sum by the defendants. Chevron claimed to be a disinterested stakeholder having no claim to the money, and tendered that sum to the court. Chevron requested the court to enter an order discharging it from liability to the defendants and requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs.
The United States asserted a claim to the fund on the basis of unpaid withholding tax, FICA tax, FUTA tax, penalties, and interest. The Government’s claim was asserted and a demand for payment made against May on September 8, 1980. A tax lien was filed on September 12, 1980. The Government’s claims exceeded the amount interpled.
The trial court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment finding that the federal tax lien had priority over Mr. Vercimak’s claim. Mr. Vercimak’s appeal of that ruling has been dismissed for failure to prosecute (No. 82-1905, dismissed, August 11, 1982). The trial court accordingly awarded the Government the interpled funds plus accumulated interest, but subtracted $3,031.93 which it awarded to Chevron as attorney’s fees and costs. As mentioned, the Government’s lien exceeded the total amount of the funds. The United States appeals the award of attorney’s fees and costs made to Chevron.
The Government contends that sections 6321 and 6322 of the Internal Revenue Code proscribe the award of the attorney’s fees and costs to Chevron. We agree. Those sections provide that no claim can compete with a federal tax lien on a “first in time/first in right” basis until the claim becomes certain in amount. United States v. Pioneer American Insurance Co., 374 U.S. 84, 83 S.Ct. 1963, 10 L.Ed.2d 770; United States v. Chapman, 281 F.2d 862 (10th Cir.). Chevron’s suit was brought well after the tax lien had been perfected. Chevron’s claim was inchoate and uncertain in amount at the time the tax lien was filed. The trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Chevron before the tax lien had been satisfied in full. The fact that interest may have accrued does not change the result.
We note that the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, does not provide an independent basis for an award to Chevron. While the Act provides that attorney’s fees may be granted to a prevailing party, such an award can only be made where not expressly prohibited by statute. Here, sections 6321 and 6322 of the Code serve as such a bar.
It is therefore the judgment of this court that the award of attorney’s fees and costs made to Chevron is hereby reversed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.