United States v. Weathers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C18-5189 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. THOMAS WEATHERS, et al.,, 11 Defendant.

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on plaintiff United States’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 310. The United States seeks a determination as a matter of law that intervening plaintiff Daystar Development, LLC, is defendant T&K Weathers Limited Partnership’s alter ego, and that Daystar’s purported purchase of T&K’s debt to defendant Wapiti Ventures, secured by Wapiti’s superior lien on the subject Properties, was fraudulent. It seeks a determination that Daystar is barred from foreclosing on the lien it purchased, leaving the United States’ tax liens in senior position.

20 Daystar cross-moves for summary judgment on its claim that its purchase was for value and is valid, and that it now holds the senior lien. It also argues that T&K is in default on its repayment obligations, and seeks summary judgment that it is entitled to foreclose on its superior interest in the Properties. Dkt. 321.

3 The government’s reply points out that T&K has not appeared or answered, and argues that Daystar’s summary judgment motion is therefore procedurally improper; Daystar’s correct course would be to seek a default judgment. Dkt. 323 at 3 (citing United States v. Spear, No. 2:22-CV-00439-BLW, 2023 WL 6463039, at *4 (D. Idaho Oct. 4, 2023) (seeking default judgment under Rule 55 is the proper procedure to obtain judgment against a party that has not answered a complaint) (citing cases). But it argues that Daystar is not entitled to judgment in any event because it is effectively T&K, and the Court has already determined that T&K is the alter ego of Tom and Kathy Weathers, the defendants who owe the income taxes leading to the government’s tax liens. Id. 12 The case has been pending for seven years, and has already been through a trial and two appeals. There is another trial scheduled for October 7, 2025, on Daystar’s foreclosure claim, and on the government’s related “nominee,” “alter ego,” and “fraudulent assignee” affirmative defenses.

16 The Court has reviewed the voluminous record and briefing. The government has not established that Daystar’s purchase of T&K’s debt and Wapiti’s senior security interest was fraudulent, that Daystar is not an assignee for value, or that Daystar is T&K’s alter ego or nominee, and it is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The government asserts that Daystar is T&K’s alter ego, and that it is therefore Tom and Kathy Weathers’ alter ego, and that Daystar’s purchase was effectively a discharge of T&K’s debt, not an assignment of a loan for value. This assertion is not supported by the evidence the government has thoroughly compiled and cataloged. It specifically does not establish that Brian Weathers “controls” Daystar; all the evidence is to the contrary. The government’s summary judgment motion, Dkt. 310, is DENIED.

4 Daystar’s cross-motion for a determination as a matter of law that it is not T&K’s alter ego or nominee, that it purchased for value, that its lien is valid, and that its interest is superior to the government’s tax liens, is GRANTED.

7 The Court agrees that a cross motion for summary judgment is not the proper way to obtain a judgment and order of foreclosure against the non-appearing and non- answering debtor, T&K. The proper course is a motion for default and for default judgment. Daystar’s summary judgment motion on its foreclosure claim (and the disputed “math” associated with it) is therefore DENIED without prejudice. These remaining issues can be decided as a matter of law. The trial date and associated deadlines are therefore STRICKEN.

14 Daystar should file a motion consistent with this Order, giving the government ample opportunity to dispute the amount of the debt secured by Daystar’s superior lien.

16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated this 28th day of August, 2025.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United S tates District Judge