Supreme Court of the United States, 1963

United States v. Buffalo Savings Bank

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 7, 1963 · Douglas

371 U.S. 228; 83 S. Ct. 314; 9 L. Ed. 2d 283; 1963 U.S. LEXIS 2589; 11 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 363 (United States Reports)

Counsel

John B. Jones, Jr. argued the cause for the United States. On the briefs were Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Stephen J. Poliak, Joseph Kovner and George F. Lynch., John Horace Little argued the cause and filed briefs for respondent., Laurens Williams and William Poole filed a brief for the American Bar Association, as auiicus curiae, urging affirmance.

Cases that cite this one

43 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. General Douglas MacArthur Senior Village, Inc., D.C.R. Holding Corp. (2d Cir. 1974)
Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Bagin (N.J. 1965)
First National Bank of Lewistown v. Tilzey (District Court, D. Montana 1965)
United States v. The State of Vermont, Cutting & Trimming, Inc., Chittenden Trust Company Ofburlington, Rainbow Children's Dress Company of New York (2d Cir. 1963)
United States v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
Fischer v. Hoyer (N.D. 1963)
Empire State Collateral Co. v. Bay Realty Corporation (District Court, E.D. New York 1964)
In re Holly Knitwear, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Holly Knitwear, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1976)
United States v. Max Pollack, Formerly D/B/A Max Pollack Co., and Shirley Mestel and Ida Mestel, D/B/A King Holding Company (2d Cir. 1966)
Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn v. Buscemi (New York Supreme Court 1966)
Ellenberg v. J.M. Tull Metals (In re McTyre Grading & Pipe, Inc.) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 1996)
McKee-Berger-Mansueto, Inc. v. Board of Education (7th Cir. 1982)
United States v. Love (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1971)
United States v. First National Bank & Trust Company Of Fargo (1st Cir. 1967)
United States v. First National Bank & Trust Co. (8th Cir. 1967)
United States v. Clover Spinning Mills Company (4th Cir. 1966)
United States v. HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'N OF TULSA (Okla. 1966)
United States v. Howard (District Court, D. Oregon 1966)
United States v. Clover Spinning Mills Co. (4th Cir. 1966)
United States v. Rahar's Inn, Inc. (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1965)
United States v. Griffin (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)
United States v. Pollack (District Court, E.D. New York 1964)
United States v. Louis Leventhal (D.C. Cir. 1963)

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

Per Curiam.

In 1946, respondent Buffalo Savings Bank made a loan secured by a real estate mortgage. The United States filed notice of a federal tax lien against the mortgagor’s property in 1953. Thereafter, in 1957 and 1958, liens for unpaid real estate taxes and other local assessments at *229 tached to the property. The bank instituted foreclosure proceedings, naming the United States as a party. The trial court’s decree ordered the property sold and the payment of local real estate taxes and other assessments as part of the expenses of the sale prior to the satisfaction of the tax lien of the United States. The United States appealed and the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed, only to be reversed in turn by the New York Court of Appeals, which reinstated the trial court’s judgment on the ground that the federal tax lien attached only to the mortgagor’s interest in the surplus after the foreclosure sale and therefore was subordinate to the local taxes as “expenses of sale.” 11 N. Y. 2d 31, 181 N. E. 2d 413.

We must reverse the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals for failure to take proper account of United States v. New Britain, 347 U. S. 81. That case rules this one, for there the Court quite clearly held that federal tax liens have priority over subsequently accruing liens for local real estate taxes, even though the burden of the local taxes in the event of a shortage would fall upon the mortgagee whose claim under state law is subordinate to local tax liens.

A similar argument based on the general character of the ■ federal tax lien was made and specifically rejected in New Britain. Moreover, the state may not avoid the priority rules of the federal tax lien by the formalistic device of characterizing subsequently accruing local liens as expenses of sale. Cf. United States v. Gilbert Associates, Inc., 345 U. S. 361. Finally, respondent’s reliance on United States v. Brosnan, 363 U. S. 237, and Crest Finance Co. v. United States, 368 U. S. 347, is misplaced. Brosnan was concerned with foreclosure procedures, not with priorities, and in connection with the latter subject relied *230 upon New Britain among other cases. Crest is wholly inapposite here.

The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.