Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02905/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02905-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., a )

corporation, ) 2:06-cv-2905-GEB-GGH

)

v. ) ORDER

)

JEANNE WAGAMAN; TRACY NELSON; )

SARAH NELSON WACKER; SCOTT NELSON; )

DANIEL CAMACHO; CHAD CAMACHO; )

OPHIR-BEAR MOUNTAIN LODGE # 33; )

JANICE M. HAMMOND; WANDA JOYCE )

TAKARA; and JERRI CURRY, )

 )

Defendants. )

)

)

AND RELATED CLAIMS. )

)

Defendant Jerri Curry (“Curry”) moves “the court to file the

final income tax returns for [d]ecedent, Virginia C. Durrie

(“Durrie”), or to appoint a neutral person to so file, and to have the

necessary taxes due and related preparation expenses [paid] from the

funds currently held in the court’s registry.” Defendants Wanda Joyce

Takara (“Takara”) and Janice M. Hammond have filed statements of nonopposition to Curry’s motion. The remaining Defendants have not

responded to the motion. 

Case 2:06-cv-02905-GEB-GGH Document 95 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

This is an interpleader action in which Plaintiff alleges

that there are four potentially conflicting claims to the assets in a

Charles Schwab account (“the Account”), owned by Durrie, who died on

November 10, 2006. (Mot. at 3; First Am. Verified Compl. ¶ 19.) 

Plaintiff liquidated the securities in the Account and delivered the

assets to the Clerk of the Court in this district for deposit into the

Court’s registry. (Order of Sept. 4, 2007 at 6:7-10; Pl.’s Not. of

Compliance with Court Order.) 

26 U.S.C. § 6012(b)(1) prescribes: “If an individual is

deceased, the return of such individual . . . shall be made by h[er]

executory, administrator, or other person charged with the property of

such decedent.” Curry argues that “[a]s there is no personal

representative or probate case pending, and the entirety of the estate

assets are currently being held in the Court’s registry, [there is no

executory or administrator for Durrie and] the Court appears to be the

‘person charged with the decedent’s property,’ who is designated with

the responsibility of filing Decedent’s final income tax returns under

26 U.S.C.A. § 6012(b)(1).” (Mot. at 4:12-15.) This bare argument is

insufficient to justify having the Court file the decedent’s tax

returns. Therefore, this portion of the motion is denied. 

Curry declares that she directed H & R Block to prepare the

final income tax returns of the decedent, but Curry did not sign and

file the tax returns because she does not believe she has legal

authority to do so. (Def.’s Decl. at 2, 3.) No party has disputed the

propriety of filing the referenced income tax returns. The only issue

is who should file the returns. This matter, however, is not

adequately addressed in the motion. Therefore, the hearing on this

motion is moved to February 11, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. 

Case 2:06-cv-02905-GEB-GGH Document 95 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Prior to the hearing, the parties should discuss whether

Curry or another specific individual or entity should be appointed

administrator of decedent’s estate for the limited purpose of filing

the decedent’s final tax returns. Five days before the hearing, Curry

shall file a proposed Order reflecting the parties’ agreement reached

and detailing the exact amounts the Clerk of the Court should withdraw

from the Court’s registry (Durrie’s Account funds), the payee, and the

purpose for the payment (If agreement is reached on appointing a

limited tax return administrator, that person could be directed to

provide the tax return in an addressed and stamped envelope(s) to the

Clerk of the Court into which the check could be placed and then

mailed to the addressee(s) by the Clerk of Court). If agreement

cannot be reached, each party shall state his or her respective

position in a filing due five days before the February 11, 2008

hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02905-GEB-GGH Document 95 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 3