Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Trustees of Dennis Pines Condominium Trust of Dennis v. Edward T. Patten, Darlene K. Patten, Citizens Bank, N.A., f/k/a RBS Citizens N.A., and United States of America; United States of America v. Trustees of Dennis Pines Condominium Trust of Dennis, Edward T. Patten, Darlene K. Patten, Citizens Bank, N.A., f/k/a RBS Citizens N.A., and Town of Dennis, Massachusetts

District Court, D. Massachusetts

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:24-cv-10808

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (16.2K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

TRUSTEES OF DENNIS PINES

CONDOMINIUM TRUST OF DENNIS,

     Plaintiff,                                                       

v.

EDWARD T. PATTEN, DARLENE K. PATTEN,

CITIZENS BANK, N.A., f/k/a RBS Citizens N.A.,

and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

     Defendants.                                                      
                                        No. 24-CV-10808-AK            

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

     Counterclaim Plaintiff,                                          

v.

TRUSTEES OF DENNIS PINES

CONDOMINIUM TRUST OF DENNIS,

EDWARD T. PATTEN, DARLENE K. PATTEN,

CITIZENS BANK, N.A., f/k/a RBS Citizens N.A.,

and TOWN OF DENNIS, MASSACHUSETTS,

     Counterclaim Defendants.                                         

  MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF’S                    
MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE AND FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT              

ANGEL KELLEY, D.J.

Before the Court is the United States’ Motion to Reinstate Case and for Entry of Final
Judgment [Dkt. 121], an accompanying Motion for Leave to file a Reply Brief in Support of the
Motion to Reinstate [Dkt. 124], and Edward T. Patten and Darlene K. Patten’s (“the Pattens”)
Motion to Stay Order Dismissing Case [Dkt. 122]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
GRANTS the Motion to Reinstate Case and for Entry of Final Judgment, DENIES AS MOOT
the Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief, and DENIES the Motion to Stay Order Dismissing
Case.

I. BACKGROUND

The United States removed this case, originally filed by the Trustees of Dennis Pines

Condominium Trust of Dennis as a condominium lien foreclosure action in the Barnstable
County Superior Court, to this Court, and filed a Counterclaim seeking to enforce federal tax
liens against real property owned by the Pattens in Dennis, Massachusetts. [Dkts. 1, 4]. On
October 3, 2025, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) [Dkt. 109] and entered an Order granting the United States’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 117]. The Court ordered (1) that the United States’ tax liens for the
Pattens’ liabilities are valid and enforceable, and (2) that the real property can be sold and the
proceeds distributed as set forth in the Parties’ stipulation and the Court’s findings. [Id.]. This
was the “sole remaining claim in this action” after the original Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its

claim. [Dkt. 115].

On October 6, 2025, the Court issued an Order denying the Pattens’ Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment, noting that the United States had “already proved . . . that the Pattens’
federal tax liabilities were unpaid and the Pattens have not carried their substantive burden to
rebut the Government’s admissible evidence supporting the tax lien counterclaim.” [Dkt. 119].

The Order directed the Clerk of the Court to “terminate the case consistent with this Order” [Id.],
which the Clerk proceeded to do the same day [Dkt. 120]. At that time, the Court had not
entered final judgment in favor of the United States after granting the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.

On October 9, 2025, the United States filed a Motion to Reinstate Case and for Entry of
Final Judgment. [Dkt. 121]. The Pattens filed an Opposition and Motion to Stay the Order
Dismissing the Case. [Dkt. 122]. The United States filed a Reply [Dkt. 123], as well as a
simultaneous Motion for Leave to File a Reply [Dkt. 124]. The Pattens filed a “Response”
(essentially, a sur-reply) on October 20, 2025. [Dkt. 125]. The Pattens also simultaneously filed

an Opposition to the Motion for Leave to File a Reply. [Dkt. 126].

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Reinstate Case and for Entry of Final Judgment

The Court construes the United States’ Motion to Reinstate as one brought under Rule
60(a), which allows the Court to “correct a clerical mistake or mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(a). Rule 60(a) is applicable “where . . . ‘the judgment failed to reflect the court’s intention.’”
Bowen Inv., Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (quoting Morgan
Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Third Nat’l Bank of Hampden Cnty., 545 F.2d 758, 759-60 (1st Cir.

1976)). “The relevant test for the applicability of Rule 60(a) is whether the change affects
substantive rights of the parties . . . or is instead a clerical, or a copying or computational
mistake, which is correctable under the Rule.” Id. Here, the United States contends that the Court’s October 6, 2025, Order incorrectly
directed the Clerk of the Court to terminate this case. [See Dkt. 119]. The Court agrees. The
Court previously granted the United States’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, finding that
the United States possessed valid tax liens and was entitled to sell the real property at issue. [Dkt.
117]. That Order resolved the merits of the Parties’ dispute and determined the United States’
entitlement to relief. However, the Court did not complete the ministerial step of entering final
judgment in favor of the United States, which would have effectuated the Court’s ruling and
permitted the United States to enforce its rights. Instead, the Order directed the Clerk to
terminate the case. That directive was inconsistent with the Court’s adjudication of the merits
and its clear intent to grant the United States the relief it sought. The Court therefore finds that
the termination of the case was a clerical error. Reopening the case for the limited purpose of

entering final judgment does not alter the Parties’ substantive rights; it merely effectuates the
Court’s prior ruling, which already resolved those rights.

The Pattens’ Opposition does not alter this conclusion. Much of the filing essentially
seeks to relitigate the merits of prior rulings, including the R&R and the Court’s Order denying
their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. [Dkt. 122 ¶¶ 4-34]. The Pattens’ only new argument
is that counsel for the United States, as a federal employee, was prohibited from filing the
Motion to Reinstate during the federal government furlough under the Anti-Deficiency Act. [See
id. ¶ 1; Dkt. 125 at 2-3]. None of these arguments by the Pattens are availing, as they address the
merits of the Court’s underlying decision and the propriety of the United States’ filing of the

Motion to Reinstate but do not bear on correcting a clerical mistake under Rule 60(a) or whether
the Court’s termination of the case was in error.

To the extent the Pattens’ Opposition can be construed as seeking alteration or
amendment of the Court’s prior merits ruling under Rule 59(e), the Pattens have not satisfied the
standard for succeeding on such a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Reconsideration is “an
extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d
24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, “the movant must
demonstrate either that newly discovered evidence (not previously available) has come to light or
that the rendering court committed a manifest error of law.” Mulero-Abreu v. Puerto Rico Police
Dep’t, 675 F.3d 88, 94-95 (1st Cir. 2012). Here, the Pattens identify no intervening change in
controlling law, new evidence, or clear error warranting such relief.1

Accordingly, the United States’ Motion is granted. Because this Order resolves the
Motion, the United States’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply is denied as moot.
B. Motion for Stay

The Pattens’ Opposition states in its caption that it also seeks a stay.  However, it is 

unclear what the Pattens intend by this Motion. The Motion does not specify what deadline it
seeks to stay, the legal authority or basis for a stay, or any justification for a stay. Accordingly,
to the extent the Pattens move for a stay, that Motion is denied.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States’ Motion to Reinstate
Case and for Entry of Final Judgment, DENIES AS MOOT the United States’ Motion for Leave
to File Reply, and DENIES the Pattens’ Motion to Stay Order Dismissing Case. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to reopen this action and enter final judgment in favor of the United States

pursuant to the Court’s October 3, 2025, Order [Dkt. 117].

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2026 /s/ Angel Kelley

Hon. Angel Kelley

United States District Judge

1 Even if the Court were to reach the Pattens’ Anti-Deficiency Act argument, the Court questions whether it would
have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim. The Pattens arguably have not demonstrated Article III standing, as there
is no showing that they suffered a concrete or particularized injury as a result of the federal government’s allegedly
unauthorized expenditure. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992). In addition, the Anti-
Deficiency Act does not appear to create a private right of action, and even if it did, sovereign immunity would
likely bar such a claim against the United States here. Cf. United States ex rel. Sargent v. Collins, 165 F.4th 102 (1st
Cir. 2026).