Court Opinion

ID: 9957800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 14:08:21.81029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.365758
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

                       COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

                                 APPEALS COURT

                                                   22-P-1064

                              KIMBERLY MCCORMICK

                                       vs.

                           DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

               MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

       In this suit the plaintiff, Kimberly McCormick, seeks to

 recover $4,606 from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue

 (DOR) that she claims the DOR erroneously levied on from an

 account at the Digital Federal Credit Union (DCU).              The apparent

 basis for the DOR's levy was a child support judgment against

 McCormick's boyfriend, Jason McManus, entered in the Middlesex

 County Probate and Family Court.            The gist of the plaintiff's

 one-paragraph complaint appears to be that, in her view, the DOR

 should not have been able to levy on funds in the DCU account.

       A Superior Court judge dismissed the complaint under Mass

 R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), citing several

 grounds, and the plaintiff appealed.           For the reasons stated

 below, we affirm.
    In this appeal we need rely on only one of the grounds

cited by the judge, which is that the complaint, taken as true,

does not state a basis for relief.   The complaint does not

allege that the DCU account levied on was solely in the

plaintiff McCormick's name.   If the DCU account were solely in

McCormick's name, then McCormick might indeed have a claim.     The

child support judgment is against McManus, not McCormick, and

the two are not married.   But without the critical allegation

that the account was solely in McCormick's name the complaint

fails, because if McManus's name was on the account (either

solely or jointly), then the levy would appear to be lawful, and

in any event, any challenge to the levy could not be filed

directly in Superior Court.   We note, moreover, that the

documents that McCormick attached to her complaint indicate (1)

that the DCU account was in McManus's name, and (2) that $5,000

was transferred to DCU from a Citicard account in McManus's

name, deposited in the DCU account on December 1, 2021, and

levied on by the DOR on December 14, 2021.

                                 2
    The plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed.
                                     Judgment affirmed.

                                     By the Court (Green, C.J.,
                                       Englander & Brennan, JJ.1),

                                     Assistant Clerk

Entered:   April 5, 2024.

    1   The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

                                 3